Lindsey Graham, Porker of the Month, Proves GOP = Dems

Every so often American politics goes through a ritual. The GOP claims that it is for small government, while the Democrats claim that they serve the poor and that the GOP is the party of the rich.  Therefore, small government is in the interest of the rich.  The Democrats claim that George Soros, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckleberg, Bill Gates, Larry Paige and Paul Pelosi are altruists.  They aren't rich because they're Democrats. They can prove that the Republicans are the party of the rich. The proof is that Charles Koch is a Republican. And he's no altruist because he's a Republican. Soros is an altruist because he's a Democrat.  Democrats are geniuses.

Republicans equally are geniuses. They claim to be the party of small government. But the Republicans have failed to cut government. Three levels of government spending are in excess of 40% of national income. But the Republicans cannot find more than a few percent to cut.

Today, Citizens Against Government Waste has named Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Porker of the Month. CAGW notes that GOP stalwart Graham was willing to bring the Senate to a standstill over Congress's failure to fund his $40,000 earmark for a federal study concerning Charleston's port, a study that is not a federal responsibility.

CAGW notes:
  
On April 11, Sen. Graham threw a fit, telling reporters that he would 'tie the Senate in knots' until the port study money was approved.  Unfortunately, the tantrum paid off.  Despite Congress’ ongoing earmark moratorium, on April 15 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on the Senate floor that he would find funding for the study before the end of fiscal year (FY) 2011. 'This project and the study it requires both reek of pork,' declared CAGW President Tom Schatz.


Exactly why Americans believe in a two-party system which has produced the likes of Lindsey Graham is a puzzle.

Can Paul and Johnson Save the GOP?

In recent days Congressman Ron Paul (R-T) announced that he is establishing an exploratory committee for his presidential bid and Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM) announced his own candidacy. These two reformers, who advocate elimination of Fed power or its reduction, have to contend with Wall Street Progressivism, which is likely to defeat them within the GOP.

Two days ago, The Wall Street Journal carried a front page story announcing "Financiers Switch to GOP." Three years ago I had suspected that Wall Street, which had heavily supported Obama, would dump Obama after his granting them trillions in subsidies and his supporting Fed policies that will, over time, cause inflation and ever greater transfers of wealth from people who work and are on retirement pensions to hedge fund managers and America's non-productive financial class. During 2008, Wall Street supported Obama because a Republican could not have achieved the massive wealth transfers that they required, for the Republicans by then had been associated with excessive support for the super-rich. To obtain the massive subsidization Wall Street required the left's support. Obama presented the image of a Black activist, a "progressive" socialist who would fight the rich. Many Republicans naively believed this. In fact, Wall Street had contributed to Obama two to one over McCain, who was associated with Bush.

Obama's supporters, New York Times readers and college students, believed that Obama would redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Obama's opponents believed that Obama would redistribute wealth from the middle class to the poor. In fact, Obama has redistributed wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

He has done his job well. During Obama's administration the transfers from the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury to banks and global financial institutions amounted to $12.8 trillion according to Bloomberg, but are likely much more. Three years ago I predicted that by now Wall Street would have thrown Obama under the bus because he would no longer be needed. His alliance with the left is inconvenient to Wall Street. The progressive left will continue to attack Wall Street while Republican Progressives will not. Thus, The Wall Street Journal reports that hedge fund managers, "who made a big bet on Barack Obama...have turned their backs...and are actively supporting Republicans." The article cites Daniel Loeb, who had raised $200,000 for Obama and who, Democratic Underground.com reports, earned $250 million in 2007 alone. The Journal reports that Loeb is a long time Democratic Party supporter, but he has switched to the GOP this year.

The Journal reported a few weeks ago that Mitt Romney had met with 100 Wall Street bigwigs to obtain financing and to offer to do their bidding. Clearly, Wall Street will aim to push for a Progressive GOP in 2012. If rank-and-file GOP members go along with it, they will elect another George W. Bush, probably worse.

There are three strategies for pro-freedom Republicans. The first is to vote for Paul or Johnson in the primaries. If they lose, option two is to support a third party. Option three would be to support Obama as the lesser of two evils in 2012.

Pakistan Dumps US---Beginning of World War III?

In his recent Trends Journal Gerald Celente and Paul Craig Roberts argue that Obama's recent military adventure in Libya under UN cover is about Chinese oil. That is, the Chinese had invested in oil in eastern Libya, and America is now supporting a military intervention that would wrest oil from the Chinese and potentially put it in the West's hands. Pakistan is allied with China because they share an enemy: India. Both countries have fought wars with India in the past 50 years. The Sino-Indian War was in 1962, and Pakistan fought India in 1965 and 1971.

Today, The Wall Street Journal carried a front page story that Pakistani Prime Minister Yosuf Raza Gilani has told Afghan President Hamid Karzai that he should dump the US. I guess that's a logical move after the billions that we've bestowed on both Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to Newsweek, we have given Pakistan tens of billions of dollars over the past 50 years. We have given Afghanistan in the range of $50 billion including military spending and aid.

In August 2008 Bill and Hillary Clinton spent a weekend at the Emerson Resort, where I work out. Clinton was about to enter the gym, but spotting me (I was there after closing) he called a secret service guy who inspected the gym and asked me some questions. Like Travis Bickle, I'm a suspicious guy. When I went home I asked myself what I would have said to Clinton had we had the chance to talk. I concluded that it would have been to urge him to work against a potential war with China.

Trends Journal is suggesting that the Chinese may be drawn into the Libyan war on Gaddafi's side, and that the Libyan war could erupt into an international conflict over oil. The Pakistani thumb nosing, which occurs just days after Celente released Trends Journal's spring issue, seems to confirm his scenario. Might Pakistan be responding to China in urging Afghanistan to reject the US? Might Libya be connected to this response?

Obama Was Lying Then, So Is He Lying Now?

 This video argues that the recently released Obama birth certificate is a fraud. . Also see the Escape from Tyranny blog (h/t an anonymous poster here).

What I am wondering is this. Back in 2008 when Pamela Geller, Texas Darlin', other bloggers and I were raising questions about the birth certificate, Factcheck.org produced the Certificate of Live Birth and put it on their site. They and Obama claimed that was all that there was to see; that the COLB was final proof. Now, Obama is producing a different document. He is changing his story. He was lying then. Whether this video's questions are legit, my question is, why did he and Factcheck.org lie? Why did they lie two years ago and fail to produce this document then?


See BO's BC:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf