Friday, July 10, 2009

SHOCKING Comments From Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through Abortion

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2009 ( - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have made a stunning admission in favor of cleansing America of unwanted populations by aborting them. In an interview with the New York Times, the judge said that Medicaid should cover abortions, and that she had originally expected that Roe v. Wade would facilitate such coverage in order to control the population of groups "that we don't want to have too many of."

The statement was made in the context of a discussion about the fact that abortions are not covered by Medicaid, and therefore are less available to poor women. "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out," said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women "of means" can easily access abortion.

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

"So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

Harris v. McRae is a 1980 court decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.

Justice Ginsburg's remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century's eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations.

Ironically, the New York Times interview began as an exploration of Ginsburg's thoughts on Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor as she prepares for her confirmation hearings this month. Coverage of Sotomayor frequently emphasizes her success story as an underprivileged minority from the Bronx who rose to prominence at Princeton and Yale Law.

Ginsburg also defended a controversial statement repeated by Sotomayor in several speeches, where she stated she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that," said Ginsburg. "Think of how many times you've said something that you didn't get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could. I'm sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. ... That I'm a woman, that's part of it, that I'm Jewish, that's part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me."

The judge also praised the advent of earlier abortions with the wider distribution of the morning-after pill, saying "I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change."

When the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007, Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, saying the court's reasoning "reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution - ideas that have long since been discredited."

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Obama a Big "Pushover" To Putin and Russia

Insightful column from today's IBD I thought I'd share:

Russia's nondemocratic rulers over the years have shown an uncanny knack for detecting weakness in their foes. Russia's Vladimir Putin is continuing the tradition.

President Obama no doubt believes he was dealing with honest brokers when he agreed with Russia's leaders to cut U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads to about 1,600 each. For the U.S., that's a cut of about a third.

But please read the fine print. This is a "preliminary" agreement. In order for it to go into effect, Russian leaders say they want the U.S. to give up its plans for a missile defense system.

To do so would, in effect, be a unilateral disarmament by the U.S. against the most feared weapons on earth — nuclear missiles. It's an abandonment of our allies, including Poland and the Czech Republic. It's not an acceptable bargaining chip.

It's reminiscent of the time in 1961 when President Kennedy — like Obama, youthful, attractive, intelligent, well-spoken — met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. During that meeting, Khrushchev quickly sized up Kennedy as a foreign-policy lightweight.

Within months, he tested Kennedy's mettle — erecting the Berlin Wall, and, the following year, sending missiles to Cuba to challenge the U.S. just 90 miles off its own coast.

In public, Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev; behind the scenes, he caved, trading our missiles in Turkey for the ones in Cuba. Kennedy, in interviews, later regretted his own callowness.

Compare that with President Reagan's 1986 showdown with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland. That came on the heels of a U.S. deployment of missiles in Europe, Reagan's refusal to sign a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and his 1983 "Star Wars" speech. He was negotiating from strength — the only thing Russians get.

In 1985, Reagan had told Gorbachev bluntly during Geneva arms talks: "We won't stand by and let you maintain weapon superiority over us. We can agree to reduce arms, or we can continue the arms race, which I think you know you can't win."

In Reykjavik, with the world's media egging him on to make a deal, any deal, on nuclear arms with the USSR, Reagan said, "Nyet." Why? He wouldn't give up U.S. missile defense. With that stand, the Soviet Union's demise was assured.

By contrast, Obama on Tuesday called Russia, a country that's falling apart, a "great power" and reassured the nondemocratic Putin he'll keep Russia's interests in mind while crafting U.S. policy.

"As I said in Cairo," the president said, "given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. That is why I have called for a 'reset' in relations between the United States and Russia."

This implies an equivalency between Russia and the U.S. that simply doesn't exist. Russia comes up short on any measure of civilizational success you might want to use. Indeed, we have elevated a country that has invaded a neighbor, uses energy as a weapon against our democratic allies and refuses to help in our effort to halt Iran's dangerous nuclear program.

Russia is not a "great" power. It's a Third World nation with First World nuclear weapons. It's in a downward spiral due to its collapsing population, shortening life-spans and shrinking economy. It might not even survive this century as a nation.

This has been the U.S.' biggest mistake: to give Russia respect it hasn't really earned. Maybe, as it turns out, Putin, a former top KGB operative, is more clever than Gorbachev. He knows our president needs a foreign affairs success.

Before President Obama signs off on anything, he'd do well to review the presidential history of dealings with the Soviets. He can learn from both Kennedy and Reagan.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Only in Obama's America- PART 1

Seventh Grade Accepts Bonus; Government Demands Return

CUPERTINO, Calif. - Brady Cooperman, a resourceful 13-year-old student at Christopher Columbus Junior High School in the heart of Silicon Valley, is facing some stiff penalties from the federal government for taking unprecedented bonuses in light of the dire economic situation.

Foe a year now, Cooperman has been working to earn enough money to buy an Xbox. He mows his elderly neighbors lawns weekly, runs errands, and helps with household chores. Last week one of his neighbors, Mr. Peter Rossdale, 82, gave him a $20 bonus on top of his weekly salary of $15.

"It's clear that Brady is accepting a big bonus," said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was given millions of dollars in bonuses himself when he was an investment banker. "We just can't allow fat cats like him to feast on the economy this way. Less than an hour's drive away from Mr. Cooperman's hometown, on the streets of San Francisco, are thousands of homeless people who have just as much right to that money."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents the city of San Francisco in Congress, also expressed her disdain at Brady's bonus.

"Do this boy's parents have no shame, teaching their own child to be so greedy?" Pelosi fumed at a press conference outside the Capitol. "This is the culture we have had to live in, ever since the disgraceful President Reagan had the audacity to suggest that some people deserve more just because they work harder or are more highly skilled at what they do! It's an outrage! Two words- NO MORE!"

Nonethless, family and friends close to Cooperman swiftly defended his bonus.

"He's a good boy," Mr. Rossdale said. "I don't know what I'd do without him. Ever since I broke my hip, I can't get up and around like I used to. I pay him $15 every week or so for helping me around the house with heavy liftng and whatnot. I know times are tough, so I slipped him an extra twenty dollars because he's been good to me and he's been saving up. I've known him since he was three."

Several other events are planned later in the week due to public outcry over the bonus. Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin says that her organization will come down from nearby Berkeley on Wednesday evening to hold a protest and candlelight vigil in front of Rossdale's home to express their objections to his decision to pay the bonus. On Saturday, the Oakland chapter of the NAACP will sponsor a bus tour to Rossdale's home, as well as the homes of many other elderly Cupertino residents whom Cooperman has done various odd jobs for.

It is clear that ever since the backlash at AIG when executives accepted lavish bonuses after requestng a federal bailout, the government isn't taking any chances when it comes to other business people, regardless of age, accepting bonuses, starting at a grassroots level.

Furthermore, should Brady Cooperman fail to return his bonus, he might face harsh charges on a state and federal level. And he'll never get that Xbox, either.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009


Not too long ago, there was a United States president whose policies supercharged our economy and led to a prolonged period of job growth, massive stock market gains, and overall economic prosperity. This president slashed the capital gains taxes (thus providing more incentive for Americans to invest) and signed sweeping welfare reform into law, forcing many of the idle to enter the workforce for the first time, instead of allowing them to continue to be a severe economic burden to our society and the working taxpayers.

Most of you, without even thinking, assume I am speaking of Ronald Reagan. However, the president I just described, believe it or not, was BILL CLINTON. Despite being staunchly liberal on social issues, and despite his embarassing moral failures, he fortunately strayed far from the liberal mainstream on fiscal and economic issues, instead opting to expand even further the policies of the Reagan years that may very well have saved our economy from complete collapse. People's eyes started popping out of their heads when Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, declared that, "the era of big government is over."

It was the policies of the Reagan administration that got America back on the right track, and brought great prosperity to people of ALL economic classes (not only the rich, as his critics contend). In fact, the poorest Americans, who had seen their incomes fall 5% in the 1970's, then saw them rise 6% in the 1980's.

Reagan ended energy price controls once and for all early in his presidency, and slashed income taxes all the way across the income scale. By the end of his eight years in the White House, Reagan had lowered interest rates, slashed inflation, cut unemployment, and boosted economic growth in a way that no one thought possible. In fact, many of today's great companies came into existence during the "boom" years of the 1980's.

In fact, the plunge in interest rates during the 1980's is especially remarkable. In 1981, rates had soared to 21% (talk about a credit crunch). By 1990, the rates were down to 7%. This stood in complete contradiction to claims by the pseudo-intellectual "elite" that growing budget deficits in the 80's would cause interest rates to skyrocket.

Under President Bush the first, the U.S. slid into a nasty recession, which ultimately doomed his chances for reelection. However, Bush left the economy in such bad shape because he strayed away from the fiscal policies that his predecessor had put into place. In addition to breaking his "read my lips" pledge for no new taxes, Bush's administration presided over a record rise in government regulation.

The most disastrous example was the Financial Institions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. The intent of this legislation was to save the Savings & Loan industry from collapse. However, it was FIRREA that ultimately doomed the S & L's by requiring them to take HUGE writedowns on certain assets on their books, most notably high-yielding corporate bonds. This caused numerous S & L's to become insolvent and ultimately fail, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, since customer deposits were FDIC insured. You can blame all the Michael Milkens and Charlie Keatings you want for the S & L collapse in the late 80's and early 90's, but it was ultimately meddlesome government regulation that led to the entire fiasco (Although for the record, I'll be the first to admit that Keating was simply a crook who looted his own customers' deposits. Miliken, on the other hand, was the government's scapegoat who in reality is one of the greatest financial innovators of all time).

In the 1990's, President Clinton got our economy back on track not through enacting liberal econmic policies, but by breaking ranks and building upon the fiscal conservatism of the Reagan years. His first Treasury Secretary was long-time Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (the 1988 Democratic VP candidate), a conservative Democrat who was one of the last great bastians of the once great Democratic party of FDR and Harry Truman. Clinton probably also remembered the disastrous administration of President Jimmy Carter, which proved that liberal economic policy is the LAST thing the country needs when we are already in an economically precarious situation. Believe it or not, I greatly admire Clinton for putting partisan ideology aside and focusing instead on what was best for our economy.

Originally, President Clinton broke his campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut and raised taxes by a record amount. That brought upon one of the most sluggish recoveries from economic recession in history. However, things began to change after the mid-term elections of 1994, when Clinton worked with the new GOP-led Congress to shrink the deficit. Instead of bristling at the "Contract With America" implemented by Newt Gingrich and the new Congress, Clinton appeared, at least in his actions, to embrace it! And it sure paid off! As the deficit fell, the Fed cut interest rates, causing the economy and stock market to soar.

In 1997, Clinton, in true Reagan-esque fashion, cut capital gains taxes, leading to another great economic boom and unprecedented expansion of wealth, especially to the middle class. In 1980, only 16% of the working-class owned stock. By 2000, the number was up to 52%.

Nonetheless, when George W. Bush assumed the presidency in early 2001, he inherited a recession after the Fed had started raising interest rates in 1999. In typical Fed fashion, they had taken away the punch bowl just as the party was starting to get really good. The terrorist attacks of September 11 cast an even darker cloud over the economy.

Then, in 2003, President G.W. Bush and the GOP Congress made several major tax cuts, setting off a huge surge in economic growth that of course, most of the mainstream media chose to ignore. Our newly elected president, Barack Obama, says that despite the positive effect these tax cuts had on the economy, he is gong to allow them to "sunset" and not renew them, despite the fact that our economy is now in just about the worst shape since the Great Depression. Unlike Bill Clinton, it seems that Obama cannot put the most imminently urgent needs of this nation and its people above his own personal ideology.

In fact, even thus far in his short presidency, Obama has presided over the greatest EXPANSION of government in history. So far, all of the supposed economic "stimulus" (mostly earmarks pandering to various special interest groups that will only stimulate the political careers of certain members of Congress) has added up to ONE-THIRD of total national output, and will probably continue to grow.

The propoed new taxes and regulations coming from this administration and the Democratic-led Congress will bring a virtually unprecedented amount of government meddling into our private lives and private businesses. There will be sweeping new taxes, on EVERYONE. Even if you get 50 bucks more in your paycheck because of a temporary cut in income taxes, it will be more than wiped out by rises in sales tax, gasoline tax, capital gains/dividend tax, etc.

Socialism, as well as the subtle slouches towards it that we are now seeing, has never brought any hope or positive change to ANY society, only more misery, poverty, and economic malaise. This should come as no surprise, as people become more hopelessly dependent on a bloated and incompetent federal government, hoping it can at least provide the bare minimum. But what about those living in poverty who want a tad more than that, like the opportunity to move out of poverty for good (as many did in the 80's and 90's)? I'm afraid those folks are out of luck, since in order for liberal economic policy to survive, people need to be kept in poverty and dependent on the government for handout, after handout, after handout, etc. etc. etc. After all, if everyone became successful and econocally prosperous due to the truly American values of hard work, independence, and freedom from the bureaucratic machine, such quasi-socialist ideas would be dumped on the ash heap where they rightfully belong.

A few weeks ago, infamous liberal pundit Bill Maher was interviewed by Larry King about the current economic crisis. Although Maher is quite intelligent, entertaining, and no doubt funny as hell, he is no doubt miguided on several issues. In the interview, he attempted to discredit Republicans by touting how Bill Clinton was our only recent president who left the economy in better shape than when he took office. Once again though, this hardly proves that liberal economic policy is the least bit effective; in fact, it demonstrates precisely the opposite. Clinton indeed did leave our economy in good shape, but it was becase rather than shun Reagan-era policies, he in many ways expanded these policies even further with the help of a Republcan-controlled Congress, after the first President Bush had unfortunately strayed away from them.

As for the Obama administration and our present Democratic-controlled Congress, all they have done thus far is pour more dirt on dirt, apparently not having learned the difficult lessons of the 70's. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile gets so high that people start choking on it. Perhaps some already have . . .


Sunday, April 12, 2009

The Modern Day Little Red Hen (Treatise in Economics)

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said, “If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?”

“Not I,” said the cow.

“Not I,” said the duck.

“Not I,” said the pig.

“Not I,” said the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.

The wheat grew tall, and ripened into gold and grain.

“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.

“Not I,” said the duck.

“Out of my classification,” said the pig.

“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.

“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.

At last, it came time to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake bread?” asked the little red hen.

“Well that would be overtime for me, said the cow.

“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.

“I’m a dropout, and never learned how,” said the pig.

“Well if I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination!” exclaimed the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen. She baked five loaves, and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some, and in fact demanded a share.

But the little red hen said, “No- I can eat the five loaves myself.”

“Excess profits!” cried the cow.

“Capitalist greed!” yelled the duck.

“I demand equal rights!” screamed the goose.

And the pig just grunted . . .

Then they all painted picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”

“But I earned the bread,” protested the little red hen.

“Exactly,” said the agent. “That’s the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle.”

So they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and robotically clucked, “I am grateful . . . I am grateful.”

But her neighbors couldn’t help but wonder why she never again baked any more bread.

I guess that lately, a lot of us have been wondering something like that . . .

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Want the Interest Rate of Your Dreams? Just Stop Paying Your Mortgage!!!

That's the message coming across loud and clear in the Obama administration's plans to help "distressed" homeowners. Ideally, people who have defaulted on their home mortgages and are close to foreclosure will be given the opportuinity to refinance through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (sheesh . . . do we ever learn?) at interest rates UNDER 5%. This is sure music to the ears of those who bought more home than they could reasonably afford, and are now on their knees pleading with Messiah Obama for help, but as you can imagine, it has many others stark raving mad. On one national newscast tonight, a woman was interviewed who just finished paying off the mortgage on her home for good, and at an interest rate that was, let's say, a TAD higher than 5%. She was understandably upset because although she was responsible (i.e. made her payments on time, purchased a home within her price range, made sure her credit was good so she could get a fixed rate rather than subprime), it's the irresponsible ones who are set to be rewarded. At a time when this woman should be celebrating and feel that a load has been taken off of her shoulders by paying off her mortgage in full, she feels cheated, and understandlably so.

Unfortunately, there's more to it than that. Let's consider Man/Wife #1 who are in good shape financially and are current on their house payments. Their mortgage rate is 6.5% or so fixed. Because they are current on the payments, they would not qualify as "distressed" homeowners and would therefore be ineligible to refinance at the lower rate through our good pals Fannie and Freddie (who by the way, have both been lining Obama's pockets quite generously since his 2006 Senate run). Just down the street from our first couple lives Man/Wife #2. They earn far less income and have rotten credit, so they were given a no down payment, subprime mortgage. The subprime period ended a few months ago, their monthly housing payment skyrocketed, and they are now seriously in arrears, with the bank about to commence foreclosure on their home. However, it's none other than Fannie and Freddie coming to their rescue, refinancing them at a fixed rate even far lower than rates offered to those with a six-figure income and spotless credit. At first, Man/Wife #1 are furious, but then they figure that instead of raging at the system, they might as well play along and use it to their advantage.

Do you see where I am going here? Man/Wife #1 simply need to stop making their mortgage payments. After a few months past due, the bank will start threatening foreclosure. Once that happens, voila! Man/Wife #1 are now "distressed" homeowners and can get the Fannie/Freddie refininancing at a much lower rate than if they had continued making their payments on time.

Many "well to do" people throughout the nation are already poised to take full advantage of this "distressed" homeowner assistance program. Even two months ago, shortly after Obama's election, I read a column in Kiplinger's where the author reported that he had recently attended a dinner party with mainly A-list people who were hardly in a financially precarious situation. The main topic of conversation among many of the guests was that once Obama unraveled his plan, they would purposely stop paying their mortgage so they could get their handout like everyone else. The topic then shifted to things they could do with the money they "save" from not paying their mortgage, such as a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus and the dream vacation to Europe they've always wanted to take.

This is a classic illustration of exactly why conservatives and libertarians staunchly oppose all of these government assistance and social welfare programs. It's not because we have a cold, uncaring attitude towards the poor and downtrodden, but rather because in reality, such utopian programs always backfire. There will always be plenty of ingenious, self-serving people who take advantage of such programs for their own benefit, often at the expense of those who the programs were originally intended to help.

But wait a minute- isn't that precisely why we have a subprime mortgage crisis in the first place, along with the accompanying economic meltdown? Who really benefitted from the politically correct (yet economically unsound) idea that home ownership is a right, and that we should thus force banks to lend to groups who are "underrepresented" in home ownership? Those from the underrepresented demographic themselves? No, they've lost their homes to foreclosure and have learned, in the most painful way possible, that if something sounds too good to be true, there's probably a good reason why. The ones who REALLY benefitted were the mortgage brokers, the predatory lenders, the credit default swap holders and underwriters, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet that some of those exact same people are among the ones foaming at the mouth right now at the propect of another opportunity to use the system to handsomely enrich themselves, this time by purposely defaulting on their mortgage in order to get the refi rate of their dreams.

So far, everything this new administration has proposed for restoring the economy amounts to nothing more than pouring dirt on dirt. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile becomes so huge that we all suffocate on it. As much as I am looking forward to 2012 and the end of this entire Obama farce, I am simultaneously frightened at how much further harm will have been done by then.