Posts Tagged ‘Fox News’

The mystery ‘missile’ seen off the cost of California in November 2010

Copyright 2010 by John T. Reed All rights reserved
On November 9th and 10th, 2010, the media got all worked up about what they said looked like a missile fired almost straight up into the sky off the coast of California north of Catalina Island.

I do not know what it was. However, unlike Fox News Shepard Smith, I got a little education that might explain it.

Any day now, Shep will report that the sun has sunk into the ocean off California—complete with a photo showing it halfway submerged on the horizon (more…)

The McChrystal firing

Copyright 2010 by John T. Reed All rights reserved
Since General Stanley McChrystal was fired on June 23, 2010, I have received a number of requests for an article on the subject. I have done what I usually do: Let the media do their thing on the subject first. I do not want to replicate what they do. When they get it right, I generally say nothing on the subject in question.

They did not get the McChrystal firing right. In those cases, I write an article that corrects and/or completes the analysis.

The precipitating facts—an interview with Rolling Stone magazine—are almost beside the point. I read the article. It was excellent. (more…)

Did Obama really graduate from law school?

Copyright 2010 by John T. Reed All rights reserved

There is no doubt in my mind that Barack and his wife would not have gotten into either their Ivy League colleges—Columbia and Princeton respectively—and their law school—Harvard—without affirmative action. Michelle is so dumb she blurted out her guidance counselor’s telling her to forget each school. Barack is not dumb enough to do that, but neither is he dumb enough to release his SAT scores and college or law school GPAs.

In view of the fact that neither one of them distinguished themselves or even lasted in the legal profession, I have wondered if they did not both flunk out of Harvard Law School, except for being allowed to graduate solely because of their skin color—and in Barack’s case, getting elected to president (not editor) of the Harvard Law Review.

Similarly, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years and both his hiring and his continuing in that position appear to be strictly the result of his half-black skin color.

Why do I say this? The guy does not appear to know the first thing about either law or constitutional law.

For example, the photo in Peggy Noonan’s 6/19/10 column in the Wall Street Journal show Obama making his oval office desk speech on the BP oil spill and quotes him saying “from the very beginning of the crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the” BP oil cleanup effort.

Let BP off the hook

Well, that let’s BP off the hook for any bad or improper decisions or execution of the cleanup effort. BP can say, “The U.S. government made all the decisions. They were in charge from ’Day One.’ You want to sue someone about botching the cleanup? Sue the U.S. government. They were in charge from Day One. Oh, yeah, and don’t forget the U.S. government has sovereign immunity from all such suits. Have a nice day.”


I and others like Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano have said Obama had no right to ask BP to set up a $20 billion fund to pay claims. Obama says the fund is independent. He means independent of BP. It’s not independent of Obama. He is putting his “Pay Czar” in charge of it.

Senator Byrd (D-WV) says all Obama’s czars are unconstitutional. I agree.

The Constitution says you cannot deprive any person of property—like $20 billion—without due process of law. (Fifth Amendment) And the courts have said the word “person” also refers to corporations.

BP cannot pay the $20 billion legally

Since Obama cannot legally demand the $20 billion, BP cannot give it to him or his “independent” “Pay Czar.” That $20 billion belongs to BP shareholders, and depending on events, to BP bondholders. BP executives are required by British and U.S. law to spend BP money in accordance with pertinent laws. They have no discretion to shell out $20 billion of BP shareholders’s money to some independent guy who gets to spend it however he wants.

BP should pay claims that they legally owe, including settling them out of court because it’s cheaper to do so. But BP has a legal obligation to BP shareholders to examine each claim and make sure it is legitimate and not exaggerated with regard to the amount. No doubt tens of thousands of totally fraudulent or exaggerated claims will be filed.

One of the companies that blows up big buildings sent neighbors a warning about a forthcoming blast in their neighborhood explaining how they could file claims if their property suffered any damage. Sure enough, after the scheduled blast, hundreds came forth with their claims. There was just one problem. The blast had been postponed a week and had not yet happened. The company duly accepted all the claims then used them to deny subsequent after-the-blast-really-happened claims for the same damage from the same people.

Approved drilling method

That same Wall Street Journal had a top of the front page cover story headlined BP relied on cheaper wells. It said the well that exploded was the long-string type which is cheaper and riskier than the alternative liners type. It also said that BP has used the cheaper long-string type more often than other drillers.

Interesting, but legally perhaps irrelevant. Why? As BP exec Tony Hayward said to Congress, BP was required to get its plans for drilling the Deepwater Horizon well approved in advance by the U.S. Minerals Management Service. BP told USMMS they were going to use the long-string method and USMMS put their stamp of approval on that plan.

So there should be no lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against BP based on the decision to use long string. That was the USMMS’ decision, not BP’s. So sue the U.S. government. Oh, wait. There’s that sovereign immunity issue again.

Was Obama involved in the decision to allow long-string at Deepwater Horizon? I think not, but his people including some he appointed had the ability to approve or rescind approval of the long-string method. They did not.

Once again, the U.S. government appears to have let BP off the hook by meddling where they know little or nothing about the subject matter.

Am I saying BP has no legal liability? Not yet. The issue is were there other decisions they made that the U.S. government did not approve or decisions that violated law or the details of a government approval? If so, were those decisions germane to the spill and resulting damage. It is possible BP misbehaved in technical ways that did not cause or exacerbate the spill. In which case they get whatever the standard fine is, no liability for the cleanup or damage.

If the government were not approving BP’s drilling methods and not “in charge” of everything BP did, ordinary common law standards of care would apply. BP’s decisions on drilling method and other details would be compared to industry best practices for the particular well as revealed by expert witnesses at trial. The judge or jury would then decide whether what BP did or failed to do was negligent and, if so, assess damages.

But that has now been bollixed up by Barack Obama and his political appointee subordinates constantly claiming to be in total charge and command for political spin reasons. If the federal government is calling all the shots, BP must not be so you cannot sue BP for calling the wrong shots. Same is true of whatever details of he drilling that were in the application that Obama’s appointees either approved or failed to rescind.

It is possible, and indeed, likely, that most of the damage was caused by the use of the government approved long-string method and by failure to accept assistance offered by foreign countries, failure to approve sand berm construction, stopping cleanup to check for life jackets and fire extinguishers, and all that federal government bureaucratic nonsense.

In other words, it may be that federal involvement prior to drilling and after the spill, some of it required by prior law, but most gratuitously added by Obama’s look-like-we’re-in-charge play-acting, will result in BP getting off the hook, or substantially off the hook, legally for damage they would have had to pay for had common law and common sense applied.

Not the first

Since “Day One” of Obama’s administration, the day he swore to uphold the constitution—twice, he has been behaving in unconstitutional and otherwise illegal ways. Obamacare is unconstitutional. TARP money has not been spent in accordance with the law that created it—either by Bush or Obama. Obama has more Czars than any other president. Senator Byrd says they are unconstitutional because they have not been approved by the Senate. Secured creditors in the GM and Chrysler bailouts were unconstitutionally stripped of their legal rights so Obama could give money to the UAW union. Obama said empathy was a criterion for a Supreme Court judge meaning bias toward the poor in violation of the Supreme Court oath which says rich and poor will be treated alike. He refuses to enforce U.S. immmigration laws.

Under Bush and Obama, the government has become the owner of a number of private businesses including GM, Chrysler, AIG, banks, Sallie Mae, FNMA, and FHLMC. This is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no law that allows the U.S. government to invest taxpayer money in equity ownership of private businesses.

Obama’s radio interview in which he denounced the constitution

Much talk about the constitution sucking because it does not allow redistribution of wealth. Unbelievable.

Either Obama does not know the law, in spite of having a diploma and law review presidency from Harvard Law School, or his familiarity with the law has caused him to have utter contempt for it. Either way, he neither plans to abide by, or enforce, our laws or constitution.

Dubious claims in gold advertisements

Because of recent financial troubles, there are more gold commercials on TV and radio than normal. Below are some dubious claims in some of them.

Advertiser Claim John T. Reed comment
Rosland Capital
G. Gordon Liddy, spokesperson
The U.S. has a $10 trillion debt As of the day I saw the ad, 4/28/10, the national debt was $12.9 trillion according to the National Debt Clock.
During tough economic times gold is the time-tested currency that goes up, not down. The year-to-year price of gold was lower than the previous year in 1970, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, we had contractions in 1973-5, 1980, 1981-2, 1990-1, 2001, and 2007-date. As you can see, the three bold contractions match years when gold dropped in value.
While noisily shuffling gold coins in his hands, “Listen to that. That’s the sound of security. That’s the sound of gold.” Gold is a commodity like pork belly futures or nickel, only taxed at a higher rate (28% instead of 15%). Like everything else, it has advantages and disadvantages. See some of the disadvantages in my article on that subject.
Goldline No dubious statements*
Lear Capital
Actor Dan Florek, spokesperson
Sometimes you only have one opportunity Please name a time when you only had one opportunity to buy gold. I cannot think of one.
to insure your assets Gold is not an insurance policy. It is a commodity. Commodities tend to fall in dollar value during depressions/deflations and rise in dollar value during inflation.
And how will you protect your investments? Gold. Gold protects no investments. If it is purchased for a reasonable price, it tends to keep pace with dollar inflation. But if you overpay for it, it will not preserve your purchasing power in the amount of gold you purchased. See my article on gold disadvantages with regard to overpaying.
Over the last five years gold has out-performed the markets I saw this on 4/28/10 so the five-year period in question is 4/29/05 to 4/28/10. There are a lot of “markets.” Lear does not specify which markets they are referring to. Over that period, the S&P 500 went up 2.4%; gold, 166.5%. But does that mean now is the time to buy gold, or five years ago? The higher a price goes, the harder it is for it to go higher and the greater the probability that it will regress to its mean.
and some experts believe the best is yet to come. Name them. And name the ones who disagree. This is close to a meaningless statement and could be claimed probably in every year since we went off the gold standard. It is also questionable whether the “experts” in question could be qualified as experts by the judge under the federal rules of evidence. A judge would question the qualifications of any would-be court expert. I wonder if anyone has ever been qualified to testify in court as an expert on future gold prices. In other words, it may be that no such expert exists.
Gold…has never been worth zero. Actually it is worth zero or less when you are trying to stay afloat in water where you have no alternative to floating.
And the timing may never be better. The word “may” renders this statement meaningless.
[Use] gold to protect and grow your nest egg. Protect it from what? Gold does not protect you from falling gold prices which are typical during a depression or deflation. And gold does not “grow” your “nest egg” unless its price happens to go up in value higher than it was when you bought it. It is impossible to say in advance whether that will happen. Putting your “nest egg” in gold is arguably an irresponsible gamble.
Gold, the smart choice for today’s investor. Only time will tell whether that is true.

* After I posted this article, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) posted a condemnation of Goldline at his website. As I understand it, he says Goldline is the biggest gold-selling company and they charge a higher percentage of the commodity market price of gold at the time a consumer buys from Goldline. Fox News attacked Weiner for picking Goldline alleging his did so to attack Glenn Beck. Goldline is a Beck sponsor. I would not be surprised if that were true. Although it is also an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. Roberts Rules of Order says,

It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.

I think every gold sellers’ gold is overpriced compared to its historical average price in 2010 dollars even if you buy it wholesale. I have never looked into the margins of the various gold dealers. My recommendation is don’t buy gold from anyone until its price falls below its historical average price in 2010 dollars ($615). At that point, you should do what you’ve been told a million times: shop around for the best price consistent with trustworthiness. By trustworthiness, I mean you need to be sure it’s really pure gold.

Weiner quoted an L.A. Times story as saying that Goldline got an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau by bribing the BBB. I do not believe that. I know of a case where a bad real estate investment guru tried to attack the BBB for its giving him an unsatisfactory rating. Finally, he decided if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. He figured as soon as he joined, he would get a good rating. They refused to let him join at all! Why? Because his company’s performance was unsatisfactory.

I have never been a member of the BBB.

O’Reilly and Beck say the BBB A+ rating exonerates Beck completely. I disagree. If Goldline is doing anything wrong, like charging more for gold than anyone else, Beck should turn down their request to sponsor him. O’Reilly and Beck are extremely adamant against their having such responsibility. I disagree. Ad-dependent media like TV and radio are not know for being eager to find fault with their sponsors. Ms. magazine admitted it accepted money from Virginia Slims cigarettes for years in spite of their opposition to tobacco because they needed the money.

Indeed, I have noticed that the sponsors on conservative talk radio stations in general are embarrassing: They sell ED cures, getting out of paying all the taxes you owe, cancer charities you never heard of that want your old car. It’s a wonder no one has reverse engineered the apparent listener profile. A reader said it’s the same advertisers on the lefty radio talk programs except for an occasional plea for contributions to Greenpeace or some such. He figured its because the listeners of talk radio are all retired or unemployed.

I have never sought or had a sponsor in any of my writing or speaking. If I ever did, you could be pretty sure I checked them out. About the only one I could think of off-hand would be Coca Cola™. I have trouble imagining Goldline sponsoring John Stossel.

Both Stossel and Beck are on my list of living national treasures whom we do not appreciate sufficiently and both will stay there.

N-word, spitting, vandalism

Democrat ObamaCare supporters are indignant over alleged name-calling, spitting, and vandalism against them. They claim this has been done by opponents of ObamaCare who are racist and/or violent. Here is a story about it.

1. The black Congressmen walking trough the crowd of angry anti-ObamaCare protesters looks about as staged as can be. In other words, I think those guys deliberately walked through that angry mob looking for trouble and incidents they could use politically. The Congress building has all sort of ways for Congressmen to avoid people they do not agree with.

2. No one can find any video or audio that supports the allegation that the N-word was used or that anyone spit on Congressman Cleaver. Plus, there was plenty of professional and amateur recording going on at that location at that time. If there is no video or audio, it probably did not happen.

There have been numerous incidents throughout the last four or five decades of people trying to attract sympathy by falsely accusing another race of racially attacking them. Blacks like Tawana Brawley did it. Whites have done it regarding nonexistent black attackers. If I recall correctly, a black Columbia professor hung a noose on her own office doorknob and claimed it was a racist attack against her.

3. If anyone did yell the N-word or spit, who was it? America’s news channel, Fox, has said repeatedly that about 10% of the tea party crowds seem to be kooks more interested in drawing generic attention to themselves than supporting any political position. Kooks do a lot of things and no end of the political spectrum has a monopoly on kooks. Indeed, many kooks go to all demonstrations no matter the cause. I live in the San Francisco area. We have more than our share of demonstrations. Police on TV say they’re always arresting the same individuals: stoner, slacker, losers who like to annoy grown-ups. The main tree sitter at the University of California at Berkeley who was stopping renovation of the stadium including cutting down some trees was never a student there. He later got seriously injured in the Holy Land demonstrating with Palestinians against Israel. Many of these people are neither left nor right. They just love raising hell. They are the equivalent of the guys who run onto the field during a baseball or football game. TV has started ignoring them. Paying attention to them encourages more such actions by more such people. The Democrats know that. That’s why they are complaining about this so they can encourage more such incidents—maybe even some real ones—and thereby distract Americans from the impending entitlements bankruptcy of the nation.

4. Then there is the possibility of what are known as “false flag” operations in military terminology. That is where the blue army pretends to be the red army either to avoid detection or to libel the red army. In politics, they call this dirty tricks. I have always thought the man who yelled “Iron my shirt” at Hillary during the 2008 campaign was a Democrat plant. Men do not talk that way in private even. Probably a feminst wrote that script. Racial or poor-taste campaign activities in which the perpetrators pretend to be the other side to make the other side look bad are common nowadays. The Reichstag fire that Hitler used as a pretext to seize emergency powers in Germany is generally believed to have been a false-flag dirty trick. At this point, someone yelling the N-word at a black Democrat ObamaCare supporter is more likely to be a Democrat operative executing a false-flag dirty trick than a tea party supporter.

5. Republican Eric Cantor said he gets threats and name-calling and violence directed towards himself because of being Republican and Jewish and against ObamaCare and so on. But he previously did not publicize it because he did not want to encourage it. Democrats know that is true and they previously did not publicize these things for that reason, too. Now they have decided it is a useful political tactic and they are literally trying to provoke as many such incidents as possible for political gain. Their allies in the media, e.g., Jim Abrams of the Associated Press in my paper today—have made the exact same 180-degree change in their policy for the exact same reason. Abrams alleges Republican Congresspeople were on the balcony of the Capitol cheering the protester and waving signs such as “Kill the bill.”

So what? Is “Kill the bill” inciting violence? It ryhmes, you know. Is there now a politically correct way to say “Kill the bill?” Like “Please gather sufficient votes such that the nays have it!”

6. Republican leaders have denounced the name-calling and spitting and violence. Why? What do these incidents or false allegations have to do with Republican leaders? They are not sure they occurred. If they did, they are not sure who the perpetrators were—maybe Democrats trying to make Republicans look bad—or the motivations or mental state of the perpetrators. If a real incident occurred, the Republican leaders neither instigated it nor wanted it. It goes without saying that such incidents, if they actually occurred, are inappropriate and not representative of opposition to ObamaCare or Democrats. By denouncing the incidents, the Republican leaders stupidly imply that their supporters did these things and accept some responsibility for them by urging them to “channel their anger into positive change” The tea party guys should tell such Republican leaders “Thanks for pleading us guilty without checking the facts first.”.

What Republican leaders should have said is,

I will comment if and when someone proves that a member of my staff or my party did this. Until then, I have no idea whether it happened, who did it if it did happen, or why they did it. Without that information, there is no basis or reason for me to comment. Everyone knows that sort of behavior is inappropriate without my telling them. And everyone knows that all of us in public life have antagonistic behavior directed towards us all the time.

The human national treasures we do not value enough

When Tim Russert died unexpectedly, I was moved to name others who I feel are living human national treasures whom we do not appreciate enough.

These are talented, diligent men and women who are successful enough that we have heard of them. But they stand above other prominent people for their character. They seek position and ratings and raises, but not at the cost of doing what’s right. Their highest priority is doing what’s right, not what gives them status or money or fame. They comply with the ideal set forth in the Frank Sinatra song My Way.

They are also like John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage heroes only without the one big, famous, dramatic conflict. But we have to know that these people on my list below have fought a million little, behind-the-scenes battles to maintain their integrity as they have lived their lives. They tell people what they need to know, not what they want to hear. They also remind us of Henry Clay’s statement, “I’d rather be right than be president.” That is, they have a vision of how they want to live their lives and they will not compromise it for any of the enticements that tempt others to live their lives so as to win the approval of others. People who do this are extremely rare.

Scott Adams, Dilbert cartoonist, lives a couple of towns away from me; we each were recruited to our first post-civilian-university jobs by Crocker National Bank in San Francisco; I left Crocker the year before he arrived; his cartoons are based on his experiences at Crocker and at PacBell where he subsequently worked, as well as on ideas from readers
Glenn Beck, radio and Fox news TV host, libertarian who is more than any of his competitors a teacher of facts and logic pertinent to the major policy issues of the day. As with Limbaugh, he is dismissed by the polite-company crowd because of his clowning around. When asked about that, he made some answer along the lines that he regretted the loss of the serious people but that he would rather that than to have Charlie Rose’s audience size. The best teachers and professors also use dramatization and clowning effectively. If Beck and Rose viewers were quizzed on the issues of the day, Beck’s viewers would outscore Rose’s by a large margin because of his persistent teaching. PBS was originally called “educational TV.” The Glenn Beck show is educational TV. PBS, on the other hand, has been running Rich Dad Poor Dad get-rich-quick infomercials.
John C. Bogle, author, founder and former CEO of Vanguard Mutual Fund Group
Dr. Michael Burry, erstwhile medical doctor who switched to stock market investing, tells people what they need to know, not what they want to hear, incentivizes himself to serve his investors first, limits their number and prohibits withdrawal for at least one year, very contrarian approach (I am the author of The Contrarian Edge for Football Offense), has no filter
Ward Connerly, effective opponent of affirmative action, former University of California regent, leader of several state ballot initiatives to ban affirmative action in CA, MI, and NE
Jamie Dimon, top banking executive at American Express, Commercial Credit, Citigroup, Bank One, and JPMorgan Chase—a guy who frequently did the right thing when most of his peers were doing the wrong thing (he graduated five years after me at Harvard Business School)
Steve Eisman, honest stock market analyst (all but a contradiction in terms other than Eisman), the hero of Michael Lewis’ book The Big Short, called the subprime crisis before it broke, has no filter
John Gagliardi, head football coach, St. Johns University; most all-divisions victories of any college football coach; unique approach to coaching
Bill James, author, baseball statistician, historian, Senior Advisor on Baseball Operations for the Boston Red Sox.
Steve Jobs, Apple cofounder and CEO, Apple Computer, Macintosh, Pixar, iPod, iPhone, iPad
Charles Krauthammer Psychiatrist, conservative newspaper columnist, Fox News contributor
Michael Lewis, author of Liar’s Poker, The New New Thing, Moneyball, Blindside, The Big Short, started at Salomon Brothers as a liberally-educated Princeton, London School of Economics kid who got paid hundreds of thousands for nothing and thought that was so stupid he quit
Rush Limbaugh, Conservative radio talk show host, pioneer of the genre, savior of AM radio, leading conservative in the U.S., appreciated fully by his fans, but not by non-listeners who underestimate him because of his mixing clowning and satire in with well-researched reporting and analysis
Joe Paterno, head football coach Penn State University; most Division I victories, bowl games, and undefeated seasons of any coach in football history; longest single-college tenure of any football coach in history; turned down numerous offers to “move up,” probably the biggest bargain of all coaches receiving just $500,000 a year in salary as a coach
Jane Bryant Quinn, fearless personal finance author and formerly at CBS TV news and Newsweek, now Bloomberg News personal finance columnist (in the interest of full disclosure, Jane is also my friend)
James (“Amazing Randi”) Randi, magician, escape artist and debunker of fakes, winner of a MacArthur Foundation “genius” award
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), His Roadmap for America’s Future is the only legitimate proposal for fixing America’s runaway fiscal train, chairman of the House Budget Committee; America’s best chance to avoid federal government “bankruptcy” or hyperinflation
Thomas Sowell, economist, columnist, author, Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, has no filter
John Stossel, fearless Libertarian investigative reporter on ABC 20/20, switched to Fox News 9/10/09, goes out of his way to do provocative stories like one with the theme “greed really is good”
Walter E. Williams, relentlessly logical, powerful advocate of liberty and free-market economics. Economics professor at George Mason University, syndicated columnist, libertarian; takes great delight in using logic to prove all sorts of politically-incorrect conclusions, occasionally guest hosts for Rush Limbaugh having Limbaugh’s announcer introduce him as “black by popular demand”

I’m sure I will think of more later. I urge readers to suggest people to me. One reader suggested Milt Rosenberg a WGN Chicago radio talk show host. He may be deserving, but I know nothing about him so I cannot put him on my list.

Why Charlie Rose is not on the list

Another suggested Charlie Rose. I generally like his show, but my impression is that he is too afraid to displease guests for fear of getting a reputation that would discourage that guest or others from accepting his invitation to appear on his show. If I did such a show, I would not have liars on and if one slipped through, I would either call him on the spot or after investigating his false statement. That would cause the liars in question to refuse to ever appear again on my show and would cause other liars to refuse to come on to begin with.

Who are the liars? Elected or appointed officials, mass market corporate executives, corporations that rely on government contracts, political activists, etc. Who tells the truth as they see it? Generally, authors, tenured professors, retired people, true experts.

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation awards grants to fellows every year. They are commonly called the “genius awards.”

They say of the fellowships:

The MacArthur Fellows Program awards unrestricted fellowships to talented individuals who have shown extraordinary originality and dedication in their creative pursuits and a marked capacity for self-direction. There are three criteria for selection of Fellows: exceptional creativity, promise for important future advances based on a track record of significant accomplishment, and potential for the fellowship to facilitate subsequent creative work.

I wish there were a similar award for the combination of accomplishment and moral focus exhibited by the sort of people I have named above—and that it were not restricted to obscure persons as the MacArthur grants seem to be. It is easier to be moral when you are obscure than when you are involved in large organizations or mass markets.

I have no money to give to the folks I named above. Most of them probably already have more money than I do. But I tip my hat to them.

Why preventive Obamacare raises, not lowers, costs

Obama says he’s going to give 49 million people who do not now have it health insurance and the nation’s bill for health care will go down. If you believe that, stop reading. You’re too dumb to comprehend the rest of this.

One way Obama says he is going to cut costs is to emphasize preventive medicine. Well that makes sense, doesn’t it? After all, we all know that a stitch in time saves nine.

Actually, it does not make sense if you think it through.

Charles Krauthammer is a conservative newspaper columnist and regular Fox News contributor. He’s also a licensed medical doctor and psychiatrist. He’s great. I just added him to my living national treasures list. He should have been there before.

When asked about preventive medicine on Fox News, Krauthammer said it was a good thing for a number of reasons but lower cost was most definitely not one of them.

I researched and wrote about preventive medicine in the second edition of my book Succeeding which came out in 2008. It relates to that book because being healthy helps you succeed and enables you to enjoy your success.

As far as cost is concerned, preventive medicine does not cost less. It costs more.

1. Preventive medicine costs more money to pay for additional medicine, exams, tests, vaccinations, health club membership, and safety devices.
2. Preventive medicine causes people to live longer which costs more because they receive more medical care, not to mention Social Security benefits, during their longer lives.
3. Living longer means you are more likely to die of a degenerative disease that requires prolonged intensive health care and hospitalization.

The cheapest health care for the government would be if everyone died suddenly of a heart attack after they stop earning taxable wages but before they started colleting Social Security. Like I said in the title, “You’ve had a good life, now drop dead.”

In Succeeding, I listed six categories of preventive medicine:

1. good health habits including:
• diet quality
• diet quantity
• exercise
• hygiene
2. regular physicals
3. getting recommended tests for detection of symptomless illnesses
4. recommended vaccinations
safer activities and places where you spend time
6. promptly getting professional advice when you have symptoms

Obama sets the diet quality and quantity example with his consumption of arugula from Whole Foods and his Somali warlord physique. But he smokes cigarettes. Sound preventive medicine would ban tobacco products. If not, the people who use them should not be eligible for health insurance that I contribute money to. Call use of tobacco a pre-existing condition—stupidity—that either excludes the user from all public health care or at least from health care that relates to tobacco use.

Same thing applies to fat people and alcoholics or problem drinkers and illegal drug users.

Obama may set an example with regard to exercise. We occasionally see him playing pick-up basketball. But he needs to work out more systematically every other day—both cardio and weight training. Maybe he could lead an exercise TV program daily like the Richard Simmons in Chief.

As far as hygiene is concerned, we’re gonna need daily inspections.

Basically, since good health habits are the main thing in preventive medicine, Obama is going to have to enact a law that requires universal daily attendance at a weigh-in, inspection of your personal hygiene, a drug test, and calisthenics. Let’s call it reveille. There’s even music for it. It sounds like this. He can bring all sorts of R. Lee Ermey types out of retirement to supervise it.

Persons who benefit from universal health care but who are AWOL from daily reveille will have a warrant issued for their arrest.

Overweight persons will be required to report to a fat boot camp where their food intake will be restricted and they will be required to exercise.

These steps will cost more money than the current heath care system.

Mandatory regular physicals

Mandatory universal health care that emphasizes preventive medicine require mandatory physicals that are at least annual or more often for persons with certain risk factors. If you do not attend your scheduled physicals, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

Mandatory tests

Similarly, according to your age and other risk factors, you will be required to get the tests recommended by the medical profession including sigmoidoscopies and breast exams. If you do not appear for your scheduled tests, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

Mandatory vaccinations

Ditto. You will get your flu shots, DPT, etc. No exceptions. These shots will kill some of you but not getting them will kill more of you. You’ve had a good life.

Hazardous activities and places

All hazardous activities will be outlawed, like riding motorcycles. All places frequented by humans like homes, workplaces, and public areas will be inspected periodically for safety hazards. If you have a safety hazard and do not correct it promptly, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

Regular dental care

Since dental care is part of your health and affects all of your health, daily brushing and flossing will be required and inspected for at reveille. Also, regular checkups will be mandatory and recommended dental therapies must be performed when recommended by your dentist. If you fail to take care of your teeth, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

All of the above will cost more than the current health care system.

False positives and negatives

The more tests you perform, the more false positive and false negative results you get. I lost half my thyroid gland to a false alarm benign lump that was discovered during my annual physical. False negatives cause you to ignore continuing symptoms that warrant a second or third opinion. In short, federally mandated mandatory preventive medicine will cause far more false test results and those, in turn, will waste more money.

A stitch in time saves nine

Preventive maintenance is usually wise because a stitch in time saves nine. One is cheaper than nine.

But preventive maintenance is not wise in some cases because sometimes the stitch only saves one or a half a stitch. You have to do a cost-benefit analysis and be careful not to cross the point of diminishing returns.

From a strict dollar standpoint, much health care given to older persons is not cost effective given their likely remaining life span. Other countries that have universal health care deny much of the health care given in the U.S. to seniors. Preventive medicine increases the percentage of people who live to become seniors.

The stitch-in-time advice does not apply to many health-care decisions. For example, preventive medicine can prevent or delay heart attacks. But everyone has to die of something. Preventive medicine that prevents heart attacks will almost certainly result in the person in question dying of a far more expensive disease, like cancer or Alzheimers, not to mention all the health care costs they will trigger for other things during their expanded-by-preventive-medicine life span.

Preventive medicine is wise policy, but not because it reduces medical care costs. It raises them. Furthermore, most preventive medicine relates to lifestyle choices and the government will not dare make effective efforts to change those choices.

Obama’s foreclosure plan

My son bought a foreclosure

In December, 2008, my 27-year-old son and his wife bought their first home. It was a bank foreclosure. They had to make over 20 offers to get one. The failed offers were not low ball. The banks simply did not respond.

One explanation was that they kept hearing from Obama that he was going to do some sort of bailout for the dishonest and/or irresponsible home buyers who bought properties they could not afford. The banks that owned the foreclosed homes did not want to sell to my son or any other solvent buyer if the federal government was going to offer them a better deal.

No bargain

My son and his wife paid $300,000, which was no bargain at the time or since, and have been making their mortgage payments on time since they bought the house. They are very excited, thrilled, and fixing it up. They also bought a puppy. Previously, as tenants, they were not allowed to have a dog. This is all good for my son, his wife, and America. People like them are the real “stimulus” package American needs.

Prior owner overpaid and stopped making mortgage payments

The prior owner of my son’s house paid $525,000 several years ago. He got divorced and stopped making the payments. I do not know why he stopped making the payments. In the vast majority of cases, people stop making home mortgage payments because they have no equity in the home. Studies have proven that, and it’s obvious logic.

Democrats have been saying it’s because they lost their job. Not true. People who lose their job but who still have equity in their home find a way to protect it through friends, relatives, or by selling the house before it gets foreclosed to extract their equity.

The way it has always been done

My son’s case illustrates the normal way people not making their mortgage payments is handled. Furthermore, it is the right way. It is the way it’s been done for centuries, in the U.S. and in England before that. It works just fine. It is fair to all concerned. In some areas, like Fort Myers, FL, the courts have created “rocket dockets” that process the huge number of foreclosures quickly. The judge asks, “Are you behind in your mortgage payments?” If the answer is yes, he asks if they are still occupying the house. If they are, he gives them 45 or 60 days to move out.

Next case.

There is no need for Barack Obama to do anything. It will take care of itself as it has for hundreds of years.

Unfair, expensive, bad precedent

Furthermore, for him to take action that lets people who are not making their mortgage payments live rent free in those houses is unjust, extremely expensive to the taxpayers, and sends an extremely bad message to future borrowers and lenders. To the extent that he forces the lenders in question to accept a lesser deal than they get from foreclosure, he is raising the interest rates and tightening the loan standards on all future mortgages because lenders will charge more and lend to fewer marginal would-be homeowners to protect themselves from future Obama confiscations of their loan or part of it.

Make whitey pay black mortgage payments and forgive black mortgage debt

Fundamentally, Obama’s foreclosure program is to have the honest, responsible people who bought a house they could afford and who made all the payments on time—largely white Republicans—pay additional taxes to subsidize dishonest, irresponsible people who are currently squatting in a house in which they have no equity and make no payments—disproportionately black Democrats (pardon my redundancy). That is an outrage. But Americans are afraid to say anything for fear of being called racist.

This is a racist policy aimed mainly at giving free passes to delinquent blacks. It is reparations masked by political rhetoric. Many dishonest, irresponsible whites are also helped by it, but I doubt Obama would be interested if there weren’t so many blacks being foreclosed, or at least he would have chosen a different kind of “solution.”

Opposition to ‘stimulus’ must be racist

Black Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-SC) says opposition by Southern governors to accepting the “stimulus” is racism against blacks. The governors may oppose it because it forces them to expand welfare-state programs, and agree to other strings, in order to get the “stimulus” money allocated to their state.

At, you can read the Fox News story about his statement. In effect, he is agreeing with the idea that Obama is using these various bum’s rush bills to a large extent to help poor blacks and only secondarily to help the nation.

I said many times during the campaign that Obama seemed to be more interested in being the head guy in charge of redressing imagined or ancient black grievances than he seemed to be interested in being the president of current U.S. citizens of all races. I said he needed to run for president of the NAACP, not the USA, if that’s what he is about. I was right.

Now we know what the ‘dialog on race’ is

Obama made a big deal speech about race during the campaign. He said we needed a “dialog on race.” Now we know what his idea of a race “dialog” is: Whites need to shut up and pay up.

I appreciate informed, well-thought-out constructive criticism and suggestions. If there are any errors or omissions in my facts or logic, please tell me about them. If you are correct, I will fix the item in question. If you wish, I will give you credit. Where appropriate, I will apologize for the error. To date, I have been surprised at how few such corrections I have had to make.

Editorial of unknown origin about Obama’s victory

Below is quote (by an unknown writer) without comment by me (John T. Reed)

Obama’s Victory

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality. A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meagre political fashion. Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers’ unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

[When I first received this, it was identified as being from the London Daily Mail. Numerous people have since told me it was not from the London Daily Mail. Whatever. I know nothing about the London Daily Mail. For example, I do not know if the Mail is pro-Obama, anti-Obama, conservative, or liberal. Whether it was from that publication or not matters not to me other than giving credit where it is due for the authorship. I reprinted it here because it was well written. I only attributed it to the London Daily Mail because I assumed they would want that. I am amused by the preoccupation about whether it was in the London Daily Mail. Why would it make any difference? I suspect the attacks regarding whether it was in the London Daily Mail are the equivalent of the attacks on Joe the Plumber. Joe the Plumber had no significance other than he inadvertently caused Obama to make an impolitic statement. By focusing attention on Joe’s background, which was irrelevant, Obama got people to forget what he said about “spreading the wealth.” Apparently the above “Obama’s Victory” comments are perceived by the Obama camp as a serious threat, so they try to switch the focus to the attribution to the London Daily Mail. The words, whoever wrote them, well describe the events in question. They stand on their own merit.

One reader said the first publication he found of the editorial was in a column by Michael Soren in the Toronto Sun and Soren credited it to a “young student friend” of his.]

The Obama victory

In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, people on both sides have, I believe, overstated or understated what the effect of an Obama victory would be.

The overstatements have been both bad and good. Obama’s own statements, and those of his cult followers, about how much better off America would be if he were elected were total bullshit. He apparently agrees because he is in a big hurry to back off them and lower expectations. A wise move, but one that is only made necessary by the standard deceit of the politician class in general and by his own extreme promise them anything to get elected approach to win at all costs.


I think the only thing he really meant by “change” was the complexion of the father of the president. Mission accomplished. I am sure that is a big change to him and to most blacks, but it is not the sort of change that was implied in all the discussions of “policy” and “the issues” that the various candidates kept saying they wanted the campaign to be about.

I do not believe Obama was ever much interested in the issues. I think he just wanted to be the world’s biggest big shot.

I don’t think that differentiates him from many others like the Clintons. But it does differentiate him from a few like Reagan who really believe in certain policies and was eager to enact and execute them.

The extreme bad predictions—most typically coming from Sean Hannity—were also exaggerated.

Radical socialist?

Is Obama a radical socialist? If he thought he could get away with it, yes. But I am reminded of the most memorable line from the recent movie The Express about the first black to win the Heisman Trophy: Ernie Davis. One of his black teammates explained that [Syracuse head football coach Ben Schwartzwalder], “Likes winning more than he dislikes Negroes.”

I suspect Obama likes being reelected more than he likes radical socialism. He seems to have been smart about subordinating his ideology to his ambition during the campaign. We must hope he is similarly smart about subordinating that ideology to his ambition when the leftists in Congress try to get his signature on leftist legislation like ending secret ballots in union elections.

America may like “change” in the abstract, but they sure as hell will not like “change” if he starts filling in that blank with things like ending secret union ballots. A landslide usually means a mandate, but if you campaign on an abstraction like change, then you have no mandate to do anything specific.

White flag?

Hannity said Obama will run up the white flag in Iraq. If I were the one just elected president, I would consult with appropriate people then tell the Iraqis that we will leave ASAP in accordance with the expiration of our UN mandate to be there and the inability of the Iraqis to agree to an acceptable to the US forces agreement. If the Hannity’s of the world want to call that surrender, let them. Adults do not make life-and-death policy based on whether “one of the other kids” will call them “chicken.”

The Iraq and Afghan wars appear to me to be endless and extremely costly financially and in American blood. I do not believe the American people want to continue and I also believe that wars are something that the American people, not the president or even the Congress decide.

With regard to the economic situation, Obama needs to heed the Clintons. On election night, one Fox pundit said Obama’s economic advisers were generally Clinton advisers, like Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin. Great! Bill Clinton knew that the main determinant of whether he got re-elected was the economy. So he listened carefully to those advisers and did what they said. Clinton aide James Carville was very frustrated and angry about it. He wanted to beat up on business and make ideology law. Clinton wanted to get re-elected. He did.

The current financial crisis is so great and unprecedented that no group of advisers may know what to do. But they probably know what NOT to do, namely keep the various demagogue promises Obama made during the campaign like punishing Wall Street and big corporations and U.S. oil companies and raising capital gains taxes and income taxes on wealthy Americans.

Obama’s trickle-down demagoguery neglected to mention that what he calls trickle-down—an ancient leftist cliche—is without doubt the best economic system in the world because of the incentives it gives to suppliers of capital, risk takers, entrepreneurs, and workers. In the movie Wall Street, character Gordon Gecko said, evilly, “Greed, for the want of a better word, is good.” ABC TV investigative reporter John Stossel, an American treasure, did a one-hour special called “Greed is good” where he proved that the incentive to make money—sometimes lots of money—is what made Americans, including low-level workers, the richest people on earth.

There is no greed in Cuba. Nor are their many Americans trying to move there, other than propagandist Michael Moore. If you want no greed, move to Cuba. If Obama does what he said in the campaign with regard to economic policy, and gets Congress to agree, we will all be moving to Cuba—without moving. If he is as smart as his supporters say, and as lacking in character as I say, he will renege on all that campaign rhetoric and encourage American business and workers to use free enterprise opportunities to improve their own lives and thereby the lives of all Americans.

Only in America? No

Obama and others keep saying this could only happen in America. Not true. It happened in Peru. Alberto Fujimori, a Japanese man, was elected president.

It also happened in South Africa. Americans tend to think of all of Africa as black. Not so. There are Arab countries like Egypt in the north of Africa and two white countries: the former Rhodesia and the former South Africa. Nelson Mandela, a black man, was imprisoned by the white Afrikaner government of South Africa, which prohibited blacks from voting. He later became president of the country.

Those two ascensions were arguably more stunning than the election of Obama as president of the U.S. And I suspect some readers will point out other such elections to me in the future.


I have said before and, after seeing the 100,000 people celebration in Grant Park, will say again, Obama appears to be a megalomaniac.


The Grant Park celebration. When I was a freshman in high school in 1960, John F. Kennedy won the presidential election. He was the first Catholic and the first Irish president. Catholics and Irish thought they’d never see the day. My Irish grandmother told me there were signs in the U.S. in the early 20th century saying “Help wanted—No Irish need apply” and “Irish and dogs keep off the grass.” Many Protestant ministers said Kennedy would be loyal to the Pope rather than the Constitution. So there were a lot of parallels to Obama, but Kennedy received the election results at his family’s compound in Hyannisport, MA not in front of a crowd of 100,000. George Bush received the 2000 election results in the Texas governor’s mansion. I recall no other president elect who spoke to a crowd of 100,000 on election night. Some may say that’s because no other candidate could draw such a crowd. Bull! They probably all could if they picked the right venue and part of the country. Kennedy, for example, could have received the results on the Boston Common.

Obama also sought a huge crowd for his nomination acceptance speech (Kennedy also delivered that speech in a stadium) and he wanted the Brandenburg gate for his Berlin speech. I guess we should be mildly encouraged that Obama did not request the Nuremberg stadium where Adolf Hitler held his mind-bogglingly huge rallies. There were a number of other venues where he spoke to 100,000 or thereabouts.

He also named his campaign plane Obama One, designed a presidential-like Obama seal, met with foreign leaders and held a press conference with one, referred to “when I was a Senator” during the campaign.

Hitler saw himself as leader of the world not just Germany. Obama, also is fond of references to a world united under his leadership.

His own wife described him as over-confident of his abilities to do anything. That is what it seems like from afar as well.

‘You can’t compare Obama to Hitler’

A friend and other readers have urged me not to compare Obama to Hitler because it’s too extreme.

One guy said I could not compare Obama to Hitler because the Nazi leader was a mass murderer. My position on it is not that Obama is Hitler but that he exhibits some disquieting similarities with Hitler.

Obama is not a murderer, mass or otherwise. Nor do I see any indications that he will become a mass murderer.

If I believe that Obama exhibits some disquieting similarities with Hitler, but do not mention it for fear it will cost me popularity with the public, I am turning into a politician. I hate politicians.

If I believe Obama is behaving similar to Hitler, I have a duty as a citizen to point it out. Behaving like Hitler is a serious dangerous sign that should be known by all as soon as possible. Most of all, Obama and his inner circle need to know about it so he will recognize he is drifting off in the wrong direction and knock it off.

You can be dishonest by silence. If I write a ton about Obama, and do not mention his Hitlerian similarities even though I recognize and believe them, I am being dishonest. I do not like dishonest people either. My lifelong reputation is of a guy who says what he thinks, tells it like it is, and does not pull his punches to be popular. If I start shading my comments to leave out pertinent, but unpopular, things I believe, I am no longer me. Not gonna happen. My doctor’s receptionist was talking to me and commented that I did “not have a filter.” Correct, and I’m not going to get one. Politicians have filters.

There does need to be a change with regard to my pointing out the similarities between Obama and Hitler, but the change does not need to happen at the Web site. It needs to happen at the White House. I will change my accusations that Obama is behaving, in part, like Hitler when he changes that underlying facts, that is, stops imitating Hitler.

In his 2/27/09 newspaper columnist and economist Thomas Sowell compared Obama to Hitler with regard to the statement that Obama is pragmatic. So was Hitler, Sowell says. He did it again with regard to eqloquent speaking ability in his 3/6/09 column. For those who accuse anyone who criticizes Obama of racism, Sowell is black.

Public speaking

I am also an excellent public speaker (according to written evaluations, votes, etc.), when I bestir myself to prepare and make such a presentation, albeit not one who draws such large crowds. I noticed when I first did it that it was intoxicating. The audience reaction both during and after the talk can make you think you are king of the world. The audience reacts more favorably to some aspects of the speech than others and there is a resulting powerful temptation to expand those parts and shrink the other parts, at the expense of truth and relationship of the content speech to the real world the speech is supposedly about.

In my case, I was scared by those feelings because I knew it was bull. One clue was I also got written evaluations from the audience and a few would usually be negative. But if you do not get the written evaluations, you only hear from the adoring members of the crowd thereby getting an exaggerated picture of your own wonderfulness.

My reaction to the intoxication of public speaking was to avoid doing it and to remind myself when the audience started acting that way that it was just speech-audience syndrome. I strained not to expand the well-received portions beyond the time they deserved. Sometimes, I deliberately try to break the spell when I sense audiences getting like that by making some statement that is designed to remind them I am just another guy.

I have heard the late Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh speak a number of times. Once, the introduction of him by the host was saint-like. It emphasized that he was not like those other coaches who yell. Bill, the introducer said, was a “teacher.” Then Bill himself said, “Yes, my coaches were yelling one day so I gathered them around me and told them to teach, just fucking teach.” In other words, he de-canonized himself then gave a man-to-man, down-to-earth coaching clinic.

But I noticed that my fellow real estate investment speakers seemed addicted to the intoxication and feeling of power and that their speeches moved more and more in a demagogic direction over time. They did embellish the parts that were well-received—to the point where their speeches contained nothing else and no longer bore any resemblance to the reality of real estate investing. Barack Obama is one of them, not someone who keeps it real like Bill Walsh and I did.

Obama is addicted to the intoxication and believes it’s real. Like the guys called “grandstand players” in sports, he tells the crowd whatever it wants to elicit the greatest favorable to him reaction. Addiction is dangerous. Believing audience adulation accurately measures your worth as a human is very dumb and also dangerous. Pandering and tell people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear is dishonest and hazardous to the audience. Only people totally lacking in character do that. The common name for them is “politicians.”

Is Obama Hitleresque?

Whenever you compare someone to Hitler people dismiss it out of hand as preposterous. Hitler was a man who had multiple characteristics. He caused the deaths of about 43 million people. You don’t have to be an identical clone of Hitler to trigger concern that you possess too many of his attributes.

Obama is different in some ways. For example, Hitler was a German soldier in World War I. Obama never served in the military. Hitler also was in jail as a political prisoner for various “community organizing” efforts that went too far. Obama never went to jail.

Jews also often object to comparisons with Hitler. I do not diminish the world’s horror of the Holocaust, but Hitler, as I said above, killed 43 million people, not just 6 million Jews. My own birthday and age were determined by Hitler. My mom said I was born nine months to the day after my draftee father returned from World War II in Europe. We all must learn all the lessons of Hitler and those lessons go far beyond just his anti-Semitism.

There are a number of disquieting similarities.

Characteristic Obama Hitler
way achieved initial power
democratic election in 2008
democratic election in 1932
age at election
main political skill
charismatic oratory
charismatic oratory

wrote autobiography

(I find it disturbing evidence of Narcissistic personality disorder when non-celebrities in their thirties write autobiographies. Here is an article by one of the leading authorities on that disorder talking about Obama. Here are some of my favorite quotes from that article. They refer to the definition of narcissistic personality disorder, not just to Obama:

In general, the narcissist always prefers show-off to substance. One of the most effective methods of exposing a narcissist is by trying to delve deeper. The narcissist is shallow, a pond pretending to be an ocean. He likes to think of himself as a Renaissance man, a Jack of all trades. The narcissist never admits to ignorance in any field – yet, typically, he is ignorant of them all. It is surprisingly easy to penetrate the gloss and the veneer of the narcissist’s self-proclaimed omniscience.

Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" – against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order.

The narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions.)

A reader alerted me to an interesting YouTube where a psychiatrist recites chapter and verse of many of Obama’s narcissism symptoms. The psychiatrist used the adjective “psychotic” to describe Obama’s narcissism have been using the word sociopathic. But then I am not a psychiatrist.

Dreams from my Father at age 34
Mein Kampf at age 36
aspired to
leadership of the world
leadership of the world
favorite scapegoats
big corporations, greedy businessmen
greedy Jews
pre-chief-of-state adult life employment
totally devoted to politics after about age 26
totally devoted to politics after about age 30
use of racial appeal to achieve power
anti-white and anti-Semitic South Side of Chicago leaders
“We are the ones we have been waiting for,” change everything, etc.
became convinced the purpose of his life was to "save Germany"
conditions at time of election (not the candidate’s fault, but can result in extreme candidates being elected)
stock market crash, worldwide economic turmoil, possible depression, two wars
stock market crash, worldwide economic turmoil, depression, hyperinflation in Germany
economic philosophy (socialism requires dictatorship or a high degree government control of economic activity)
socialist (“spread the wealth,” calling socialism “sharing” and capitalism “selfish,” federal universal health care, government handouts to 95% of adults, lengthy criticism of U.S. Constitution’s lack of “economic justice” in TV interview)
socialist (official full name of Nazi party was National Socialist German Workers Party)
innovative campaign tactics
first to make extreme use of Internet
first to campaign by aircraft
free speech
wants to reimpose “fairness doctrine”
made criticism of government officials illegal
pertinent training to be head of country
law school
German Army basic training
pertinent experience to be head of country
speaking to community gatherings and training activists, political legal work, part-time state senator (U.S. senator in name but mostly campaiging for president while in that job)
political party executive, speech maker, then leader
new, extra-constitutional supplementary security forces

Obama at 7/2/08 speech:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

Two apparently self-appointed black men in black uniforms, black combat boots and berets, one carrying a billy club, posted themselves at a Philadelphia polling place. They claimed they were “security,” but cited no affilitation with any authority. They tried to make a Fox TV camerman leave. Many suspect they were there to intimidate whites from voting at that polling place. Here are the police approaching them.

Two TV clips appeared during the campaign. One show elementary school children singing a song about the wonderfulness of Obama. Another featured black teenagers in military boots, camouflage pants, and black t-shirts holding their forearms in front of their chest in a self-fist-bump behaving like paramilitary force members barking commands and sentiments expressing admiration for Obama. The former looked like somehing the North Koreans would do. The latter looked like Hitler Youth. HERE is the Obama Children video juxtaposed with Hitler Youth films by someone on the Internet. It ends with a photo of Obama in Africa the relevance of which I do not know.

Ordnertruppen former military and local thug security guards to protect Nazi rallies from disruption

• SA (Sturmabteilung a.k.a. Brown Shirts a.k.a. Frontbann
) paramilitary force

SS (Shutzstafel) elite paramilitary force equal to military in power

Waffen SS, SS subsidiary within active-duty military (civilian and military SS were almost entirely responsible for crimes against humanity prosecuted at Nuremberg trials)

Jugenbund later changed to Hitler Youth for 14- to 18-year olds

use of the Big Lie technique

The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." The OSS (predecessor of the CIA) analysis was: His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.


In between signing the most fiscally irresponsible laws in the history of the universe (“stimulus” and the 8,500-earmarks bill) Obama held a Fiscal Responsibility Summit.

Also, claiming there was no pork or earmarks in the “stimulus” bill, no lobbyists in his administration, etc.

Whether he would meet with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions. In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” he answered.

Then, when he was attacked for that position, he denied it. But, A visit to said the exact opposite, however.

“Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”

After 20 years of close associations with Reverned Wright swore he was not aware of Wright’s hatred of whites or America.

Promises free health care, free college, tax cuts for 98%, stopping global warming, energy independence, no change in social security, medicare, or medicaid and reducing the deficit

In his budget speech in Febuary, 2009, Obama angrily vowed that he would not put a big debt on America’s children and grandchildren, which is exactly what he had just done by quintupling the already-too-high deficit. It reminded me of Clinton swearing “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

Jews are to blame for everything that’s wrong in the world. Jews are treated well in the Third Reich.

No intention to invade Czechoslovakia.

No intention to invade Soviet Union.

The source of Big Lie technique, from Chapter 10 of Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf:

… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Here is an email I got from a reader about this:

I haven’t been or your site in a while and I was pleased to see the articles comparing Obama to Hitler. I am a quasi-expert on Hitler and the Nazi party and I have been comparing Obama to Hitler for a while now. During the inaurguration I actually broke out Albert Speer’s memoir ‘Inside the Third Reich’ and held the pictures of the Nuremburg party rallies right next to my television screen. It was uncanny. Thank you for having the balls to say what needs to be said.

FDR, use such circumstances to try to grab additional, unconstitutional amounts of power. Recall that FDR, after being stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court, tried to expand the number of justices from nine to 15 (called court packing) through the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 which was defeated.

Here is an email that was going around on the Hitler-Obama comparison. I do not know who wrote it.

Subject: Who am I ???

  • I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country.  I was not his only child.  He fathered several children with numerous women.
  • I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.
  • Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
  • My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
  • I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
  • I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
  • That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
  • I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.  It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
  • I became active in local politics in my 30′s then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s.  They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.  That reinforced my conceit.
  • I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
  • I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.
  • At first, my political campaign focused on my country’s foreign policy……   I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
  • But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country’s economy.  I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.
  • I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.  It was the free market, banks & corporations.   I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
  • I called mine "A People’s Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.
  • I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.
  • I knew that, if I merely offered the people ‘hope’ , together we could change our country and the world.
  • So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews.   My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation’s leader.
  • I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
  • I’m glad they didn’t.  Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.

*Who am I?




Scary isn’t it?

I note that although this list of similarities is longer than mine, many of its entries are irrelevant like his father getting multiple women pregnant.

I also see similarities between Obama and the Pope. I said we should be mildly encouraged that he did not ask for the Nazi Nuremberg rally site to speak when he was in Germany. Add the Lincoln Memorial and National Mall and St. Peter’s Square to that list. The Pope also has a worldwide leadership vision.

Keep an eye on his approach to the Inauguration. There is a traditional site and scope. Will they be enough for The Messiah? (See Wikipedia messianic complex article. Wikipedia also has this definition of a God complex: “A God complex is a state of mind in which a person believes that they have supernatural powers or god-like abilities. The person generally believes they are above the rules of society and should be given special consideration.”)

Oprah once introduced Obama as “The One.” If anyone ever did that to me, I would shoot back, “The One What?” Obama did not. He just basks in that sort of cult-of-personality adulation. Why? He agrees with it! He also believes he is “The One.” Not only does he believe he is the Great Half-Black Hope, he believes he is the savior of the whole world and people of all colors. Like I said above: megalomaniac. Those who say I’m wrong are secretly afraid that I am right.

Like I said this guy needs to be watched closely for more evidence of these psychiatric disorders.

If he starts saying things like

• “state of emergency”

• “martial law”

• “suspend habeas corpus”

• “president for life”

• “Fairness Doctrine”

Cling to your Constitution and Bill of Rights. Actually, do more than that. Go out into the streets and demand his impeachment and convicction.


After every election, the winners talk about bipartisanship. It’s bullshit. There will be no bipartisanship. Why should there be? The Dems have both houses of Congress and the White House by a large margin. They will ignore the Republicans other than to laugh at them.

If Obama is an ideologue

I said above that Obama might be pragmatic like Clinton was. But no one knows him. He may really be the ideologue that he claimed to be in the promises he made during the campaign.

If he is an ideologue, look out! He has the allies in the Congress to pass the socialist workers party platform. I read somewhere that the New Deal was largely a copy of the Socialist Party platform from the turn of the century.

Many figure that if the Democrats turn America into a socialist country like Western Europe, the voters will throw them out and the Republicans will take charge and fix it.

It is likely that the Republicans or another party that replaces them will retake control in the future. Incumbency and party control seems to corrupt politicians so much more than normal that even the voters who elected the scum bags can no longer stand the stench.

But, one must not forget the ratchet (movement only in one direction permitted) or fishhook (easy to go in but extremely hard to pull out) nature of government programs. FDR started social security in the 1920s. Republicans opposed it. Arguably, the Republicans were right. In recent decades, we have heard again and again that social security will bankrupt the country. But Americans have become addicted to social security and Republicans are terrified to suggest even the slightest change in it—thereby increasing the probability that it will bankrupt the country.

The hated teachers unions, one of the most evil and destructive forces in America, got Democrat president Carter to create the Department of Education in 1979. Ronald Reagan replaced Carter in 1981, having run on a promise to shut down the Department of Education. He was not able to. It is still there.

Once government programs have significant numbers of employees and recipients of benefits, it is extremely hard to get rid of them because both the employees and recipients fight like cornered animals to preserve their place at the public trough.

The far, hard left bought the presidency for Obama. They will expect pay back for their $88 million. If they do not get it, they will raise more money to destroy him. Hell hath no fury like a leftist scorned by his bought-and-paid-for politician. They are political suicide bombers—secular jihadists when it comes to their views. Obama is almost totally dependent upon them for non-lobbyist money and he made not associating with lobbyists one of his most-bragged-about virtues. He desperately needs to get re-elected. I do not know him. But I know he wants to be re-elected.

To resist that, Obama will need more political courage than he has ever shown in his 47 years. One of his own allies, a Democrat congressman said that he associated with Wright et al in Chicago because he lacked the political courage to walk away from them when he still hoped for a political career in the South Side of Chicago. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Obama to show the courage he has never before in his life exhibited.

Judge appointments

Then there are federal judge appointments.They are appointed for life. With majorities in Congress and the White House, the Dems can install many, many federal judges who see the constitution the way Obama said he does, that is, as a bad document that needs to be ignored or reinterpreted in socialist ways. During the Bush administration, Dems prevented him from filling vacancies in the hope that they would win the White House and Congress in 2008. They did, now they will fill not only the vacancies that Obama would normally see, but also the Bush vacancies that they Dems refused to fill in the last eight years. Depending on how long they hold this control and the decisions and health of the Supreme Court justices, Obama may also change the Supreme Court 180 degrees.

America voted for change in the abstract. It is unlikely that our center right citizens will like the sort of change that Democrat politician judges will deliver to them. And little or nothing can be done about federal judges for a generation.


The Dems are the party of illegal immigrants. They strengthen their power by letting as many illegals in as possible then give them amnesty so they can vote. Republicans try to kiss up to them. To no avail. They voted for Obama. Now the Dems will grant amnesty to the 12 million currently here and encourage more to come in. That will make it harder for Republicans to get back in power until the immigrants switch to the Republicans. That may seem unlikely, but if you look at the history of American politics, lots of unlikely things eventually happen, including electing a half-black man president.

President for blacks only?

I often commented that Obama seemed to be black first and American second—perhaps overcompensation to overcome the “curse” of having a white mother.

Will he now use the presidency to advance the black imagined and ancient grievance agenda—like reparations?

I don’t know. We do not know him. No one does.

He did quickly name a white guy as chief of staff, and immediately was criticized by the Congressional Black Caucus who thought a black president should have given that job to a black person.

The Black Caucus, which once refused membership to a white congressman who represented a majority black district because of his skin color, can kiss my ass. The mere existence of the Black Caucus is a racist outrage. Try starting a White Caucus.

I hope Obama continues to ignore their clamor for special favors and preferential treatment. I do not object to Obama giving a job to a black when that person is the best qualified, but only then. If he seems to be using the White House for black, affirmative action, political patronage or a sort of “my people” nepotism, he can kiss my ass. I expect the American people, whose non-black percentage is similar to Obama’s percentage of the black vote—90% ish—will run him out of there in 2012 if he uses the White House to advance the Reverend Jeremiah Wright “God Damn America” agenda.

Compared to the market, Congress has no power

America is a one-man-one-vote country. Obama won that on 11/4/08. But to be re-elected, he must also win the “votes” of the worldwide financial markets. George Bush and his party mate McCain did not. That market is NOT one-man-one-vote. It is one-dollar-one-vote.

The people who own those dollars will not be “voting” for a man who denounced NAFTA, big corporations, low taxes, unregulated executive compensation, oil companies, greed, and who advocated raising both income and capital gains taxes. To win those “votes,” Obama has to back away from all that and do so promptly and convincingly. If he does anything remotely resembling that, his leftist supporters will go nuts. Welcome to the NFL, rookie.

Tax policy

To hear the right tell it, Obama will destroy the country with his tax polices. Is that true?

Probably not.

Historical tax rates

I am wrote a book about real estate investment called Best Practices for the Intelligent Real Estate Investor. Roughly speaking, it is a very sophisticated version of the basics of real estate investing. Around the time of the 2008 election, I was working on a chapter about the history of real estate investment. That chapter includes a history of the maximum tax rates since the Internal Revenue Code began in 1916, the amount of income needed to require those tax rates, and the maximum long-term capital gains tax rates. A great source was the Citizens for Tax Justice Web site which has those exact historical numbers at

Some highlights of that table: As recently as 1986—during the Reagan Administration—the maximum ordinary income rate was 50% and you only had to make $215,400 to trigger that rate. In 1981, at the end of the Carter Administration, that same amount of income triggered a 70% tax rate.

As recently as 1978—during the Carter Administration—the max capital gains rate was 39.9% and that applied to all capital gains no matter how big, like an ordinary worker’s profits on the sale of his vacation home or a $500 gain generated by his mutual fund selling some stocks.

As you will see there, the current max rate is about 35% on ordinary income and about 15% on long-term capital gains. Obama has talked about raising the maximum ordinary rate 5% or 10% and raising the capital gain rate to 20% to 28%. As you can also see there, the proposed Obama rates are rather moderate by historical standards and not much different from the Bush rates. The world-coming-to-an-end wailing of Hannity et al fails to put the proposed tax rates into proper perspective.

All tax increases hurt the economy by discouraging work, risk taking, and profits

However, it is also true that raising tax rates discourages the things that are taxed, namely capital gains, business profits, and salaries. People who are the targets of tax increases generally modify their behavior to avoid the new taxes entirely or at least to minimize their impact.

One common effect of higher capital gains tax rates is to delay selling assets that have gains until the tax rate goes back down. That interferes with the normal workings of the marketplace and dramatically reduces government tax revenues. Roughly speaking, Dems are the party who tax the shit out of capital gains, thereby causing investors not to recognize any (sell the asset and thereby trigger the tax). Then Republicans come in, lower the rate, and reap a bonanza of tax revenue from the pent-up desire to sell the assets.

Democrats are generally stupid and this is one of their behavior patterns that shows it. (Don’t bother asking me to prove that. You’ll wish you didn’t. The evidence is substantial and embarrassing.) George Stephanopolis and Charles Gibson tried to explain this repeatedly to Obama during a presidential primary debate but he either could not comprehend what they were telling him or he figured his supporters were too dumb to understand it, so he came up with “justice” as a justification for raising the capital gains rates and thereby reducing federal government tax revenue. In addition to being called stupid, it is also called cutting off your tax revenue to spite Republican voters.

Raising the maximum tax rate on ordinary-income causes actions like the following: U.S. and corporate bonds are sold and the proceeds are put into so-called “municipal” bonds. Actually, that category includes state, county, municipal, and other sub-federal bonds. Generally, the interest on such bonds is tax-free. Here is an article that explains some of the nitty gritty details of that.

Putting more into 401(k), IRAs, and other pension plans defers interest and gains from federal income tax until retirement. Although Dems have recently spoke of ending or nationalizing such pension plans.

People can also simply stop working if they can afford it. Some will say “Screw Obama! If he is going to take that much of my income, I won’t earn that much any more.” That also may be cutting off your nose to spite your face, but people are pissed about his “spreading the wealth around” goal. Many will refuse to work under Obama’s tax rates or will work less to stay under them.

There are also ways to make a living tax free, like working in the underground economy, e.g., drug dealers. Or you can create home value by buying a home real cheap or upgrading a home. That increases your net worth, but it is tax free. To get the money, you can sell once every five years under IRC §121 and $250,000 per spouse of the gain is tax free. Then you can do it again and again every five years. (Bill Clinton signed that into law.) The higher Obama pushes tax rates, the more people will do stuff like that to avoid paying those tax rates.

Generally, every percent Obama increases the ordinary and/or capital gains tax rates will hurt the economy by discouraging people from taking actions that will trigger the higher taxes. It will also paradoxically lower the revenue to the government—again, beyond the mental comprehension of the typical Dem voter—thereby increasing the deficit, national debt, and interest amounts paid by taxpayers and consumers. (Consumer borrowing like home mortgages and car loans competes with the U.S. government for loan/bond money. The more the government needs to borrow, the higher the interest rates that the government and consumers will have to pay for their borrowed money.)

Will Obama and his Dem allies ruin the U.S. economy with tax increases? It’s possible. It depends on how high he raises them and on whom. It also depends on whether he does other stuff that hurts the economy like enact protectionist laws.


The public thinks the Republicans caused the Great Depression and FDR’s various interventions ended it. Not so. The 1929 crash was caused by similar things as now. Too much borrowing and gambling in the securities markets driving up prices too high. But the Depression was not caused by the crash. It was caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, overly tight Federal Reserve policies, and too much government intervention in the marketplace.

World War II, that is Adolf Hitler and Tojo, ended the Depression. FDR’s policies deepened and prolonged what would have been just a stock-market-induced recession. Obama already promised protectionism in Ohio saying he would renegotiate NAFTA (that’s illegal) and in his vote against reducing tariffs on goods from Colombia. Dems love tariffs because, again, they are not very bright and have a lot of union members (there’s some of that evidence I mentioned) who erroneously believe imports are net worse for American wages and jobs. In fact, international trade has been the best part of the economy in the early months of 2008.

For a personal example of the value of international trade, stop wearing any clothes you own that say “Made in Somewhere Other Than The U.S.” Stop watching TVs made outside the U.S. Stop driving any cars you own that are not GM, Ford, or Chrysler. When you call a company and hear an Indian or Pakistani accent, hang up. And so on. The not-importing ship sailed long ago. Protectionism is not an option and enacting it will kill us worse than during the Great Depression because international trade is far more important now than it was then.

Warning: Dems don’t call it “protectionism.” They call it “fair trade.” Same thing with spin. Free trade is the best way and that means no tariffs even if your trading partners impose tariffs on your goods. Tariffs punish the consumers in the country that enacts them in order to protect a few residents of the country in question and help the local politicians stay in office. The fact that another country punishes their citizens by making it more expensive for them to purchase American goods is no reason for us to treat our citizens so stupidly and unjustly. True, we would be better off with two-way free trade. But one-way free trade is better for us than no trade at all, which is what “fair trade” leads to as each country retaliates against the other until all trade is cut off.

‘Energy independence’

By the way, so-called “energy independence” is a form of policy against imports. If Obama pursues policies designed to reduce imports of a product called oil or gas, he will worsen our economy. We import oil and gas because the alternatives are much more expensive especially liberal fantasies like wind, bio fuels, solar, which are not even close to cost effective and are not likely to be even after Obama spends $150 billion taxpayer dollars trying to make them economical. See my article on that and my article on gasoline prices.

Global warming

Global warming is a hoax. 60% of British people have figured it out. The U.S. won’t be far behind. Spending money to try to stop it would be economic suicide. Obama wants to do that. I expect the American people will stop the day they realize they have to pay significantly more in taxes and/or for goods and services to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. See my article on that.

If Obama and his Dem allies enact protectionist laws and higher tax rates and intervene in the economy like FDR, it could well have the same effect—deepening and prolonging the recession until it becomes a Depression that lasts until the next world war. (World War II cost a total of 62 million lives. It’s a very expensive way to get rid of dopey policies.)

Obama’s economic advisors are going to tell him that raising taxes, enacting protectionist laws, and intervening in the economy will make the economy worse and get him thrown out of office in 2012, if not before. They will recommend lowering taxes, cutting spending, expanding free trade. Obama will say, “But you are telling me to continue the failed Bush policies, to do what McCain said he would do!” Yes, Barack. The campaign is over and so is campaign bullshit. Now you really have to run the economy and the Republican policies are the correct ones.

Barack: “How can I explain that to the American people without my looking bad?”

Economic advisors: “We don’t know Barack. If you’ll recall. we told you the same thing during the campaign but you rejected it because your campaign manager David Axelrod told you it would hurt you politically if you agreed with Bush on economic policy. We are telling you it will hurt you now politically if you do not follow the Republican policies because the economy will tank, you will get blamed, and the voters will ride you out of town on a rail.”

His first appointed “economic advisor” is the former governor of Michigan. That’s right. I said Michigan. Home of dying government-bail-out-receiving GM, Ford, and Chrysler and a dreary urbanscape of burned-out factories and cities. If you are not familiar with it, watch Michael Moore’s Roger and me. He blames the management of GM for the closed factories you see in the movie. I blame the United Auto Workers union and the Michigan governors who pandered to them. There are many succcessful car companies in the U.S.—all non-union, foreign-owned in the non-union American South and West. Apparently, in his me-getting-and-keeping-power-is-all-that-matters view of the world, Obama has concluded that turning the U.S. into Michigan will get him re-elected.

Some have said Obama is pragmatic, not ideological. In fact, we don’t know that. The guy is cryptic. We can only hope he is pragmatic like Clinton.

‘Fairness Doctrine’

Dems in Congress want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine.” Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets. In other words, he wants not to force a conservative talk radio station to let Harry Reid have three hours to match Rush Limbaugh’s program. Obama wants to force the owners of the conservative talk radio station to sell the station to a black guy or to NPR. In other words, Obama wants affirmative action racial quotas and political view quotas for ownership of media outlets

It arose when there were few radio and TV channels. When I was a kid in the 1950s, there were only three TV channels: ABC, CBS, and NBC. There was also only AM radio. Politically, the stations were all neutral. They all had to get their licenses renewed annually from the government so they were afraid to broadcast anything controversial for fear the government bureaucrats would not renew their licenses. The bureaucrats set up the “Fairness Doctrine”—which was FCC policy not law—to encourage stations to cover controversial issues but to save the bureaucrats from getting grief from the public about it by requiring the stations to present “both” sides. I put both in quotation marks because there are often more than two sides and—in the case of profoundly stupid policies like rent control and protectionism—there is consensus among honest experts that there is only one correct side. Only demagogues and ignorant laymen favor rent control or protectionism. Also, back then, controversial issues would be presented in 30- or 60-second spots, rarely as entire programs.

A mini-“Fairness Doctrine” of sorts has arisen in recent years with regard to the President’s regular Saturday radio broadcasts and his televised speeches. The out-of-power party is provided free air time to match the free time given to the in-power party. Neither I nor any other person opposes that.

The problem is forcing conservative talk radio stations to provide half their air time for free to liberals who tried and failed to attract audiences in recent years, in spite of being backed and subsidized by rich leftists like George Soros. This would cut the profits of those outlets approximately in half and would likely force many of them to music or news formats.

The reasons why the left cannot attract audiences (they do in my home area of San Francisco, e.g., KGO—we also have KSFO which is conservative) are multiple. Winston Churchill said,

If a man is not a liberal when he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative when he is 40, he has no brain.

20-year olds no longer listen to AM radio or read newspapers. 40-year olds do. The media for the young is the Internet and TV, which are primarily liberal. Across the entire media spectrum, there is balance. Insisting the liberal views be on AM radio is like forcing young people to buy Depends or that old people listen to hip-hop stations. Since the government is not going to prevent listeners from changing channels or force them to buy products of those who advertise during a Janeane Garafalo rant, the opposing views would be heard by almost no one. So the “Fairness Doctrine” is just a way of shutting up critics of the party in power.

If Congress were today to try to impose the “Fairness Doctrine,” the stations and public should rise up and refuse to comply with the law like the Alien and Sedition Act. Force Obama to send armed men to break down the doors of the radio stations in front of TV cameras.

Other than in the context of a game with a rule book, the word “fair” tells you that a politician or con man is about to lie to you. That applies to “Fair Trade” as well as the “Fairness Doctrine.” Both the “Fairness Doctrine” and forcing media companies to sell to blacks and/or liberals are further manifestations of Obama’s megalomania.

To be continued