When You Point the Finger at China for "Currency Manipulation..."

Be aware there are three fingers pointed back at us, the US, and specifically the FED.

Laura Ingraham and Pat Buchanan went on today about howRomney was right to 'get tough' with China on trade Specifically he promised if elected to bring China up as a GATT violator due to currency manipulation.

China essentially laughed at this and the fact is, they're right to do so. The US has NO right to take China to the WTO, GATT, or anywhere. 10-15 years ago? Sure. But back then we were too busy falling over ourselves to given them "Most Favored Trade" partner status while they were running over their own citizens with tanks.

Now? Well, perhaps Ms Ingraham and Misters Buchanan and Romney have not heard of "Quantitative Easing." If they have not, here is an educational video on the subject they should watch. The simply fact is, Romney can scream all he wants about China being a currency manipulator. WTO will look at it and go "Pot, meet Kettle."

Because the world's biggest currency manipulator the past 3 years has been Mr Bernanke. He has devalued the dollar to the point where we only the meaninglessness of our current inflation statistics fail to show the runaway prices every family SEES in the supermarket. Doing this has harmed not only our economy, but the economies of dozens of nations around the world that have pegged the value of their currency to ours.

The truth is, this is nothing but another attempt by a candidate consumed by his self-importance, Gov. Romney, and his own sense of entitlement to the nomination of the party his father failed to win, to say anything he senses as 'popular' to win votes. He did the same thing in Michigan last cycle when he promised protectionism against Canada to the people there. If he goes someplace Free Trade has helped, I'm sure he'll be the #1 free trade proponent in the world. Why? Because Romney can't believe anything for himself. He only accepts policies to aid his own entitlement to hold office.

He is a man without principles or integrity. And he is just as unfit for the Presidency as the current resident of the Oval Office.

When You Hear Bachmann, Romney, and Santorum Whine about 9-9-9

And how it's supposedly "unworkable." Here's some folks who say it WILL work.

Paul Ryan loves him some 9-9-9. And I would say "Miss Federal Tax Lawyer" Bachmann, that Paul Ryan knows the code and the math of what would work and what wouldn't better than ANYONE.

And Mr Santorum, if the CHAIR of the Budget Committee in the House says HE would support it, I think it's fair to say it would get GOP support.

Art Laffer, the Master of Supply Side Economics publically supports 9-9-9. Saying it would both simplify the tax code and unleash the economy, thereby creating JOBS.

Let's be honest. Bachmann, Romney, and Santorum didn't think of 9-9-9 because they're inured in Washington as Usual. Bachmann is ambition above competence. Romney is the guy obsessed with redeeming his family name after his father's failure. And Santorum is right on many things. But he's incapable of optimism.

And that is what Cain has in Spades, over all three of them, and over Obama. He wins by the Carville rule: The Most Optimistic Candidate will almost always triumph. The fact he has a workable economic plan, when Romney's is imbedded in loving the current tax code, Perry doesn't know what an economic plan is, and the other candidates are "coming out with their own plans" as well, makes their criticism laughable, as well as off-base.

Like Barbour, I'm not saying I'm endorsing the Herminator yet. But if I had to vote in the primary today, Cain would be my slam-dunk choice.

H/T: Ace of Spades HQ

Speaking Lies For Power. The "Wall Street Protest"

First, I will say this: Every person has the right to be say what they wish, no matter how wrong it is. Unless it is a falsehood that harms another person's well-being or dignity, they have the right to be utterly, stupidly wrong-headed. Even the people clueless enough to say things like these. 

They have that right, and I have served my time in the military to defend it. That said, I am no less free to call them what they are: Paid protestors, astroturfed by the Obama Administration and Labor Unions, whose sole purpose is to distract the voters from the reality that this administration has utterly failed at every single objective it has set for itself, other than promoting abortion and increasing class warfare.

Paid protesting has been one of the hallmarks of the Obama Regime. So this should not come as a surprise to anyone. The Left wants to compare these paid goons to the Tea Party. But the Tea Party was not organized by Parties, or Labor Unions. And it did not arrive without a clear idea of what "One Thing" it would demand from the "Establishment." They arrived on 9/12 to say specifically that the Federal Government had overextended itself, and that it needed to live within its means. Many among them did not subscribe to neo-Con foreign policy, or Social Conservative positions. But they understood government was too large.

This astroturfed whine-fest doesn't recognize the Constitution, or personal freedom, or a clearly articulated platform. It is nothing but the petulant rant of over-indulged children. The people whose votes have been given to the very Establishment they claim to resent.

I respect Paul Ryan. But in this case, he is dead wrong and Herman Cain is absolutely right. When the Obama Administration resorts to thuggery, like it did in Madison. Like it is doing now, there is no point in trying to speak civilly to a mob. You do not negotiate with children acting out. There is nothing to be learned from these 'protestors,' other than what we already knew:

The Obama Administration is perfectly willing to use any methods of the Chicago Machine, or Allinskyite tactics, to accomplish its goal of perpetuating power and class warfare. The only rational response is to follow the money and hold Trumka and his goons responsible for their unlawful actions. If the Tea Party had ever resorted to the kind of threats he has repeatedly employed, there would be thousands in jail.

To end the protests, we would only need to impeach one man, and arrest a second. There is ample evidence to do both.

Never Settle. Never Surrender. There is Always a Choice.

The Florida Straw Poll wasn't just a protest. There is a real choice: Fox News and Zogby both show that Herman Cain is a serious player in the media's self-appointed two-man Establishment vs Establishment GOP race of Perry vs Romney. What's more, his economic plan is eminently workable. There are elements of concern I have for it. But it's superior to anything else the field has. The Fox News poll is potentially skewed against Cain as well. And certainly Fox has been trumping up Romney love to the best of its ability all along, right down to having Karl Rove, who sits on Romney's campaign, giving 'advice' on TV to voters as well.

The danger with Cain so far has been himself. He has a tendency to talk occasionally too much like a radio-host, with no concern for his future. But then, this is also part of his charm, in that it's clear he's not a politician.

RSM @ The Other McCain  suggests that these polls show that Herman Cain is drawing in those that Palin's non-candidacy had left available. And Allahpundit shows that Perry's fall from grace was entirely self-inflicted. Given the fact there's more debates to come, I don't think Perry is going to get STRONGER. He has real issues, and he simply isn't quick enough on his feet. Now, will the Hermanator be able to stand against serious scrutiny? That's an open question. We're going to find out soon, to be sure.

But none of that changes what is the central fact. You don't have to settle for the guy whose "turn" the Establishment says it is. We don't have to let Karl Rove play kingmaker, again. There are real Conservative choices in the GOP field, and there's no reason not to explore those choices. Romney is NOT that choice. His entire campaign is, "I'm best to beat Obama." But I've seen no evidence that's true. Let's be honest, he was chased out of his Governor's chair in 1 term, and has never won 'anything' else. His 'business' experience pales to Cain's, and he's never actually created Main Street jobs.

Politically, Romney's record is inferior to everyone but Cain. More losses, no real accomplishments save giving Obama the blueprint to Socialized medicine. In the private sector, he's grossly inferior to Cain, whose turnaround of Godfather's is one of the best success stories in modern business. Romney has important friends and lots of money. But those friends include the people who brought us "Big Government Conservatism." Which is to say, "Faux-Conservatism," under Pres Bush the younger. Do we really need another statist with Crony Capitalist ambitions in office? I don't see how. We have a choice. Take it. I'm not saying Cain has to be the guy. But I am saying there's nothing in Romney's record that says he is the guy. Knowing the right people (who are in fact, the wrong people) is what got us into this mess.

And He Wonders Why We Call Him a Narcissist?

Unreal. "If you love me, pass this bill?" Seriously? You just managed to lose a NYC district for the first time in 40 years. A district that NEVER had voted for the GOP since it was created. And now...this?

Love me, pass me, ME ME ME !

Unbelievable.

h/t BenHoweblog

9/11: Fixation or Remembrance?

The Tenth Anniversary of a horrific day has come and gone, and I've held my peace on the subject until now to not impugn genuine grief and sorrow. I'm sure this will be more than a little controversial. But I think there is a fair question to be asked. "Are we remembering what happened? Or are we fixated on the fall of the Towers?"

The chattering class throws out the usual annual platitudes about how we "Lost our innocence as a nation" on that day. And how different the world is post 9/11. And the second is demonstrably true, mostly for wrong reasons. But there are a number of things the political class says that are simply hogwash.

The idea that we 'Lost our innocence" on 9/11 is absurd. Vietnam and the war reporting that surrounded it did a far better job of destroying our innocence than 9/11. Then there was the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. We like to forget how humiliating as a nation it was to have Iran thumb its nose at us day after day for over a year, claiming it had nothing to do with the takeover of our embassy even as they celebrated the "Great Satan's" abasement. The sight of the botched rescue attempt, with our helicopters strewn across the desert, made our military look inept in a way nothing that happened on September 11th, 2001 could have.

There was a poll on the MSN homepage yesterday, asking if 9/11 should be a National Holiday. 50% of the respondents said "yes." Now that was hardly scientific, but it is still symptomatic of the issue. We don't "celebrate" defeats. We did not make Pearl Harbor Day a holiday. We do not celebrate the day the British marched through Washington D.C. and burned the White House (Quick, can you place the date? August 24-25th, 1814). We do not "celebrate" the Hostage Crisis. None of those are national holidays, nor should they be. 9/11 should not be either. It does not take a holiday to remember a tragedy.

The politicization of 9/11 on both sides of the aisle has been pathetic. Faux-patriotism and jingoistic flag-waving that can't find a place for the families of those who lost their loved ones that day at the memorial service. The passage of laws that impugn the principles of freedom that jihadists seek to destroy. The failure to recognize that we are at war with an ideology that seeks nothing short of the eradication of the ideals of freedom, representative government, and separation of church and state that made Western Democracy the engine of freedom and prosperity for over 200 years.

We are fixated on an image, like idolators who thought the wood and stone they worship was in fact their god. We dredge up the memory of the attack as if it was another disaster movie, and the 24 hour news cycle feeds our lust for the image because it's good for ratings. But we don't REMEMBER. We don't learn. And because we refuse to take seriously the fact we're are war with an ideology, and have been LONG before 2001 (Indeed, that wasn't their first attack on US soil, technically the 1979 Embassy takeover qualified as that. But there was Beirut, the Cole, and the 1st Trade Center bombing as well, among others.), we dishonor the memory of those who died the unwitting victims of jihad.

I am not saying to be anti-Islam. But whenever Shariah law is made the standard, whenever we cater to the idea that the West started the war between Islam and Christianity, whenever we refuse to accept that it is jihad that is the issue and an evil, and not some nebulous "lack of empathy," whenever we surrender our freedoms and become more like the enemy, we have given the terrorists what they want. And we have failed to remember.

Our fixation is unhealthy. And like an addict who cannot get away from the sight of his drug, we need to wean ourselves from it, so that we might truly remember what we are supposed to be fighting, and how.

Conducting some Bloggish Necromancy, Debate Commentary

Yes, I just conceded I'm a fantasy geek and RPG lover. Oh well. You've got me. It has been a while. There are reasons for that beyond being lazy, but I don't think you really are looking at this to hear about my personal life. What you may be interested in is my thoughts and impressions about the GOP debate at the Reagan Library.

First: Why was MSNBC allowed anywhere near the patron of Conservatism's legacy? And how in the world was Brian Williams being allowed to "moderate" a debate? And moderate was a joke of a word, because there's no doubt he brought in his bias. There were the excessive number of questions Huntsman received. And I agree with R.S. McCain, he represents no constituency. http://theothermccain.com/2011/09/08/gov-benzene-huntsman-a-green-phony/ Perhaps some think he can be a 'centrist' third party candidate. I have to ask, on what grounds? What 'centrist' constituency respects him? Why is he on the podium and Thad McCotter not? I'm fairly certain they poll at about the same numbers. This isn't a John Anderson in the making, where at least he could say he had mounted a credible primary campaign. There's nothing to Huntsman but the media fascination for a candidate who is Obama-lite.

Second, where does Williams have the right to ask loaded questions about how any candidate can 'sleep at night' given their policies? We get it that he doesn't like Capital Punishment. But guess what? The majority of the US populace disagrees with him. They may not like how it is administered. But they do agree that there are legitimate circumstances where it's necessary. How is it 'moderating' a debate to send up a question clearly accusatory in nature? Are the Democrats (given a primary challenge for Obama), going to have a debate at the Kennedy Library, and then bring in Rush, R.S. McCain, and Michelle Malkin to 'moderate' it? That would only be fair. Why was every question to Ron Paul, "You want the government agency doing 'x' to be abolished. Why aren't you EEEEVIL?" We get it, he's a Libertarian. Guess what, Reagan was sympathetic to their views. As am I, to be honest. But instead of asking loaded questions, why not ask for specifics on transitions or changes to the existing programs?

Why was Herman Cain given 6 questions in 2 hours? Less face time than any other participant, including the non-polling Santorum and Huntsman? Is MSNBC raaaacist? Or are they simply afraid of an articulate Black Conservative attacking their meme that he's an Uncle Tom tool for the RNC? I wanted to hear more of Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan. And he was the ONLY candidate with REAL solutions on both Medicare and Social Insecurity. If anything was worthy of being debated, it was that. Not mythic jobs records or red meat boilerplate.

As for Gov. Romney, nothing he said made me think he is anything but whatever can get him elected. Now he's prancing about saying Rick Perry wants to abolish Social Security. Perry never said that. He's got Karl Rove saying the same thing. You know what Rove? You weren't relevant in 08, you were insignificant in 10, and you're a NOBODY now. Go crawl back under your rock. Your influence ended when Bush left office. Let's be honest, it's been a Conservative principle SINCE Reagan to reform Social Insecurity. Because we've been the only ones honest enough to look American people in the eye and say, "The math is clear, this will not last forever."

Perry's right, it IS a Ponzi scheme...worse, it's a COMPULSORY Ponzi scheme. I'm 41, and my money will not be available to me when I retire. And I have no choice but to keep paying into this mess. But now Mitt JellySpine Romney has decided that Republicans have to love them some Social Security, that the band-aid of 'indexing' benefits will fix the problem. It won't. It might have 20 years ago. But we're past that now. The only credible solution I've seen at this point is Cain's. Simple math. The baby-boomers are coming due for retirement. When they do, the money being taken out will explode the program. Medicare has the same problem. No accounting trick is going to solve those problems. If you want these to exist when WE retire, then they have to be changed into radically different programs from what they are now.

At this point, I've no idea who I'll vote for out of that gaggle. As a Conservative who has tired of the GOP's establishment, and made a home in the American Conservative Party http://theamericanconservatives.org/cms/index.php, I can say that I will vote my principles, not based on some desire to support the "lesser of two evils." Because the lesser of two evils for Republicans is NOT that for Conservatives, we saw that with Bush the Younger, where we were forced to swallow No Child Left Behind and Medicare Plan D, and the whole disaster of "Big Government Conservatism" and Neo-Con nation-building foreign policy that Bush 43 brought us.

I know there are two candidates from that debate I CANNOT vote for. Romney and Hunstman. I would vote 3rd party before either of them. I could probably support any of the others as meeting a basic threshold of Reagan Conservatism. But I'll watch before I convince myself of that. Because I'll never hold my nose and vote again. The Founders never wanted a system where voters had to do such a thing. Let alone do it repeatedly.