Saturday, March 28, 2009

The day’s top political news:

London Protesters Threaten Bankers, Evoke Executions

(Bloomberg) -- Mark Barrett, a professional tour guide, spent last Saturday painting Barack Obama’s election catchphrase “yes we can” on a banner that protesters will carry as they try to occupy London’s financial district April 1. 

Barrett is helping organize a protest outside the Bank of England, one of several called to express anger against banks and bankers and mark the arrival in London of leaders of the Group of 20 nations -- including Obama, now president.

All police leave has been canceled to increase security and financial workers have been told to wear casual clothes amid warnings that protests could turn violent.  Leftists are big on uncontrolled violence in the streets – they have a long history of murder as protest..

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aBXS1tLJEC4A

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva blames the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.

Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”

“Racism” as national policy raises its ugly head – a pathology once a basis for Nazi Germany.

Mr Lula da Silva also spoke out strongly against raising trade barriers in response to the global crisis. “I compare protectionism to a drug,” he said. “Why do people use drugs? Because they are in crisis and they think the drug will help them. But its effects pass quickly.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae4957e8-1a5f-11de-9f91-0000779fd2ac.html

U.N. “Climate change” plan would shift trillions of dollars to form a new world economy

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

The UN devises a plan for confronting the silly threat of “climate change” which will also cause financial chaos and threaten socialism on a universal scale.  If it says “UN” its not likely anything positive for the US or for normal people everywhere.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

Opinion:
Time to organize normal America to confront the madness

Everywhere we look, there is evidence we face one of the greatest crises of our time.

It’s not just here in the US where liberal politicians are running even more amok than usual, it’s overseas as well.

Look at the racist rant of the Brazilian President - Lula da Silva – who only a week ago was rubbing elbows (and presumably dining on the mushroom risotto Michelle Obama later fed to homeless people in DC).  Silva says its all the fault of “white people with blue eyes”.  Hmmm has Louis Farrakhan been to Brazilia of late?   Has Al Shapton found a new venue for his “girl in the dumpster” act that creates hatred where there is no causative affect?

Look at London.  Massive riots are building in those historic streets as left wing wackos from throughout the world salivate over a change to destroy property and shout down the productive elements of society.

Don’t try to find legitimacy or reasonable foundation – it’s just an orgasmic out pouring of hatred.  It’s envy and jealousy in the streets – and you get extra points if you don’t bathe or shave for a week or so before the event.

These rioters that will confront the financial leaders of the world, are not the “clean cut” idealistic students that liberals love to use as false fronts for many of their movements.

For the first time, liberals may not be the only public protesters.

Recalling scenes from the movie in which the main character demands everyone run to  their windows and shout “we’re mad as Hell and we’re not gonna take it any more”, conservatives all over the country are demonstrating they are finally mad enough to act.

Conservatives are not often moved to actually go into the streets to protest.

That’s normally the behavior of the left.  (I am resisting a strong urge to note the liberals in the streets don’t have jobs or other productive pursuits as conservatives do)

“Tea Party” protests are appearing all over the country.  It seems as many as 1,000 such events are planned for April 15 – coinciding with the day income taxes are due.  Others, more inclined to subdued acts of outrage, are mailing tea bags to the White House on April 1 so they will reach the White House by April 15th.

Of course Obama wont see the angry letters, read the angry emails, or even see the tea bags.  Those things are handled by staffers and volunteers who will respond with boiler plate messages.  Somebody might get a rough tabulation of all this and feed the data to “Team Obama” strategists for them to analyze things and work on strategies for dealing with them.

All of this is well and good – but only if it results in a positive result.

America doesn’t need act of protests that only serve as providing opportunities for venting anger and providing an outlet for pent up outrage.

The real question is clear: 2010 and the elections of that November.  Nothing else matters in terms of what normal America can do to fend off the liberal madness and stopping the damage to our country liberal Democrats are inflicting now.

Liberal Democrats dominate both the House and Senate these days.  This means they will have more vulnerable candidates in the House and probably in the Senate as well.  These vulnerable liberals must be confronted in the polling place and defeated – replaced by conservative alternatives.

Such and outcome is the most effective answer to the nation’s problems.  It follows, of course, with the election of a new president in 2012.

The anger and fury that now spreads across the nation can prove to be an important moment IF it can result in actions by normal America to take control and actually change things this period of our history may eventually prove to be one of those moments of enlightenment that leads to greater times.

Those things that anger us most, provide us with the greatest opportunity to achieve what we know needs to be achieved.

That’s not a quotation from some statesman of yesterday – it’s a very accurate summation of where we stand today. 

In short, it’s all up to us.

Buddy

Today’s top blogs:

First, a brief overview:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802235514741871.html
 
You and I Can't Buy the Guns Mexican Cartels Own
The Administration is Not Dealing Straight With Us on Mexico's Gun Problem

Ralph Weller

Let's set things straight right up front.  Yes, some guns are being smuggled into Mexico from the U.S.  Most are handguns.  But, handguns are being illegally trafficked from state to state and from the U.S. to Canada.  It should come as no surprise that guns are smuggled into Mexico.  But, the problem being portrayed by the U.S. media and our government is not as it seems.

2.

http://townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2009/03/27/carpe_crisis

Carpe Crisis  
Oliver North
 
WASHINGTON -- On Sunday, Nov. 9, 2008, Rahm Emanuel, now the White House chief of staff, famously described the future Obama administration's philosophy for governing: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." "O-Team" sycophants in the so-called mainstream media chuckled. Conservatives were alarmed. We now know we had reason to be.

3.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811121310853037.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

National Health Preview:
The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood.
 
Praise Mitt Romney. Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country. It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.

In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.

Now, the complete articles:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802235514741871.html
 
You and I Can't Buy the Guns Mexican Cartels Own
The Administration is Not Dealing Straight With Us on Mexico's Gun Problem

Ralph Weller

Let's set things straight right up front.  Yes, some guns are being smuggled into Mexico from the U.S.  Most are handguns.  But, handguns are being illegally trafficked from state to state and from the U.S. to Canada.  It should come as no surprise that guns are smuggled into Mexico.  But, the problem being portrayed by the U.S. media and our government is not as it seems.  You see, Mexico doesn't allow ownership of most firearms, so ordinary Mexican people seeking self-protection will find a way to get them into Mexico.  As for the drug cartels operating in the border towns along the U.S., they have other sources for their weapons and have become the prime supplier within Mexico.

I worked in Mexico in a border town for about five years.  It was far enough from San Diego County in the Sonora Desert of Mexico that commuting several hundred miles daily was impossible.  So, for a few years I lived in the city and commuted home periodically on some weekends.  As crime grew out of control, I eventually moved into a place on the U.S. side and commuted daily in and out of Mexico for my own safety.

I stayed in Mexico for a Mexican holiday my first year.  I don't recall the holiday.  Normally, I would leave Mexico for a holiday, but it was in the middle of the week and one day was not long enough to come home.  All I know is that on that particular Mexican holiday, Mexicans love to fire guns into the air.  That evening as I sat on the balcony of my hotel, the gun fire that erupted in celebration was quite unbelievable.  It was so intense I backed off the balcony and watched the festivities from a couple three feet in the room.  We're talking war-like firing of weapons, it was that intense.

As I listened that night to the gun fire, I was somewhat shocked at the amount of fully automatic gun fire.  It wasn't sporadic.  It was continuous throughout the city.  For a country that bans guns I thought, how in the world did they get their hands on all these full-auto weapons?  Clearly what sounded like M16 fire was prolific along with 7.62 x 39 AK autos with a smattering of smaller caliber full-autos, most likely 9mm.  Gun fire can be heard in most American cities on New Years, but I've never heard full-auto weapons being fired, at least not in the San Diego area.

The next day I went into work and sat down with a trusted senior Mexican manager.  I looked at him and said, "I thought guns were illegal in Mexico."  He chuckled and said, "So you stayed in town last night?"  As the conversation progressed, it became clear that guns are as common in Mexico as tamales at Christmas.  Everyone he knows, including himself, own at least one gun.  And, it matters not whether it's a semi-auto or fully automatic, they're all illegal, so why stop with semi-autos?  Though clearly illegal in the states in most instances, a lot of Mexicans have more firepower in terms of military weapons than we can only dream of owning here.

As time went on, parties in the city at middle class Mexican homes become a way of life.  Most Mexican managers in the plant knew I was a gun wonk.  As it turns out, they couldn't wait to invite me over to their place on a Friday night to show me their collection.  Semi-autos, some very high-end Sigs and other European handguns were not uncommon along with piles of old revolvers.  I thought I had seen everything in the states, but in Mexico it's not uncommon for people to own full-auto military rifles.  Everything from an M16, UZI machine pistols and the most popular, select-fire AK47 military rifles.  These are not the so-called "assault weapons" you can buy at the local gun shop in the U.S., but full select-fire military-issue rifles. 
 
Now, I know you want to know and are dying to ask; Did I see any U.S. military-issue weapons stolen from the U.S. military?  Not a single one was marked with U.S. military markings.  Everything was marked with additional foreign markings on the receiver, including M16 rifles, or they had nothing at all.  I saw firearms manufactured in Europe, China, Russia and South America along with U.S. manufactured weapons.  I saw rifles that looked familiar with no place of manufacture, no serial number or manufacturer's logo.   The information was not removed, it was never there to begin with.  I can only assume they came from illegal arms manufacturers in India or Pakistan that produce copies of weapons.  It was obvious that none of these firearms came from a U.S. gun shop in Tucson or San Diego.  You couldn't buy them from a gun shop in the states if you tried.

It seems Mexicans have a rich heritage of firearms ownership prior to the ban in 1968.  Despite the laws against owning them, they ignore it.  Most Mexicans will say they need it for personal protection of themselves and their family.  The other reason is they don't trust the government or local law enforcement.  If they have to use it in their home for self-defense, whether they end up in jail is all dependent on how much money they can come up with, or who they know in the government.  It also depends on who they shoot.  But, given the alternative with high crime rates, most middle class Mexicans willingly and without reservations take the risk.  Despite being able to own .22 caliber pistols or rifles, Mexican law requires them to be stored at an approved firing range.  Where's the firing range I asked many times?  No one knew of one.  Where's the gun stores in town to buy legal guns?  Gun stores?  No one ever recalled seeing one anywhere in Mexico, let alone their city.   I'm sure somewhere, maybe in Mexico City you might be able to buy a gun, but not in this city of almost 1.5 million residents.  And the gun traffickers know it. 

Where do ordinary Mexicans get their weapons?  Most buy them from a 'friend' or a friend of a friend or cousin or uncle.  Where the friend gets them is not talked about.  But, it seems that drug cartels in Mexico are heavily involved in gun trafficking of military weapons and related hardware.  And, who are these ordinary Mexicans?  They range from people who work in factories as managers and senior managers, government workers, doctors, dentists and anyone with the financial means to buy a firearm.  I even ran into a couple of government bureaucrats, one a lawyer for the federal government who owns firearms.  He confirmed that people he knew in the government, some very highly ranked bureaucrats and politicians all own illegal firearms.  The other works for the Mexican equivalent of the IRS.  It's a way of life in Mexico.  It seemed to me that you aren't in the 'in-crowd' in Mexico unless you own at least one firearm.  I was amazed at the whole thing after believing for years that gun ownership in Mexico was non-existent.  That is hardly the case.

All this flies in the face of news articles published by the U.S. media in the last week or two.  Mexico's gun problems are a direct result of gun runners buying "assault weapons" in the U.S. and taking them into Mexico to arm drug cartels, says the U.S. media and government. 
 
That is a bunch of government and media nonsense.  The cartels aren't arming themselves from U.S. gun stores with semi-auto AR15 and AK47 rifles.  They've moved on up.  Not to completely dismiss arms moving into Mexico from the U.S., but it is not as it seems when the U.S. media tells the story. 
 
The firearms moving across the border are semi-auto rifles and handguns sold to middle class or wealthy Mexicans seeking personal protection from criminals that have no connections in Mexico with gun runners.  For the most part the wealthy in Mexico are targets of criminal elements, so they have no intention of connecting up with them to buy a self-defense firearm.  You're better off buying a weapon from someone within the Mexican government than buying it from the criminal element, namely a drug cartel.

Cartels buy their arms from countries around the world, most any place where military weapons can be purchased on the black market, or from countries wishing to destabilize North America.  They arm themselves from a worldwide black market of full auto military weapons including grenades, land mines and RPGs.  They also "procure" their weapons from the less than savory from within the Mexican military.

The drug cartels can easily afford to fly their weaponry into Mexico using their own fleet of aircraft on to remote airfields, or land them on remote Mexican shores from their fleet of vessels.  They do it with drugs all of the time.  Drug cartels buying semi-auto AR15 or AK rifles from U.S. gun dealers is viewed as a joke by Mexico's drug cartel, most Mexicans, and unfortunately by the Mexican government. 
 
The only people fooled by all the political rhetoric are Americans listening to the likes of Attorney General Eric Holder and other anti-gun politicians.

Mexico has a gun problem, just like they have a drug problem and both the U.S. and Mexican governments are trying to place the blame on U.S. gun owners. 
 
U.S. gun owners aren't the problem.  Mexico is the problem.  The government is corrupt from the lowest level law enforcement officer shaking down American tourists for traffic violations, to officials and politicians highly placed within the Mexican government, including elements within the military.  Everyone knows it.  Everyone in Mexico knows it.  Every law enforcement official in the U.S. knows it, and everyone in our government knows it.  And anyone who has worked for any length of time within border cities and lived in the local community knows it.  This is taking a Mexican problem, blaming the U.S. by turning it into a crisis in order further an agenda, and Eric Holder and President Obama knows it and they are taking advantage of it.

The next time you see a news report of illegal full-auto weapons and grenades being found here in the U.S., you know where they came from.  It wasn't from a gun store in Tucson or Phoenix.  The administration is right that gun trafficking along the U.S./Mexico border is a problem.  Not only do we have drugs and illegal aliens coming in our southern border, but we also have military arms and explosives coming into our country illegally as well.  That's the issue and our government is being disingenuous in its argument.

This AP news report published today is typical of what is going on.  It is disgustingly biased and flat wrong: AP report for Detroit Free Press

Don't believe me and what I say?  See what the Latin American Herald is saying about a recent arrest of cartel members and their weaponry in Mexico.  No, the items listed weren't purchased at a gun store in Phoenix or Tucson.  Grenades and RPGs are illegal in the U.S.: LAH Story

2.

http://townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2009/03/27/carpe_crisis
 
Carpe Crisis
Oliver North 
 
WASHINGTON -- On Sunday, Nov. 9, 2008, Rahm Emanuel, now the White House chief of staff, famously described the future Obama administration's philosophy for governing: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." "O-Team" sycophants in the so-called mainstream media chuckled. Conservatives were alarmed. We now know we had reason to be.

At the time Emanuel made his comment -- five days after the election -- we thought he was referring to the ongoing economic crisis to justify life-altering legislation on new government spending, social entitlements, higher taxes and massive debt. A quick glance at the Obama budget proves we were right. However, it turns out we grossly underestimated the willingness of the O-Team to apply its carpe crisis maxim to every situation -- foreign or domestic.

Anyone who has followed the current travail of the Mexican government in dealing with hyper-violent drug cartels south of the Rio Grande agrees that it is a serious calamity. In 2008, more than 5,800 people were killed in Mexican drug-related violence, double the number in 2007. At least 1,100 have died thus far in 2009.

The $40 billion that drug lords reap annually from U.S., Canadian and European "customers" has fueled massive corruption in Mexico, allowing cartels virtually unlimited power. Ruthless killings of civil, police and military officials who resist have become endemic. When the chief of police in Ciudad Juarez refused a cartel's order to resign, he was told that they would kill one of his police officers every 48 hours. Five of his officers were murdered in 10 days. The chief quit and went into hiding.
Not all of the problem is south of the border. Well-funded Mexican-affiliated drug gangs operate in at least 230 U.S. cities and towns -- keeping their American "clients" supplied -- and are fighting for "turf."

Last year in Phoenix, there were more than 370 drug-related kidnappings. Cartel-related crimes have been reported from Albuquerque to Anchorage and Seattle to Savannah.

Last month, Mexico's courageous and beleaguered president, Felipe Calderon, began deploying military units to fight well-armed narco-terrorists in northern Mexico. On the U.S. side of the border, DEA, ATF, FBI, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, along with state and local law enforcement officers, commenced a coordinated, multi-state crackdown on drug gangs. According to the Department of Justice, the operation netted 755 drug dealers, money launderers and smugglers.

In addition to committing additional law enforcement assets to the border, the U.S. also is providing Mexican authorities with intelligence, high-tech detection gear, sophisticated sensors and night-vision equipment for combating cartel "foot soldiers" armed with automatic weapons, hand grenades, heavy machine guns and Soviet-era rocket-propelled grenade launchers. This help certainly is warranted. It is in our national interest that the Calderon campaign against the cartels succeed.

Unfortunately, the O-Team and its "progressive" allies in Congress aren't satisfied with the progress that is being made thus far. They apparently intend to use the cartel crisis, as Emanuel has advocated, "to do things that" they thought they "could not do before."

On Feb. 25, Attorney General Eric Holder urged the U.S. "to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons." He said, "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

The following day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said, "I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and intend to do so."

And March 17, during a Senate Judiciary Crime and Drugs Subcommittee hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., claimed that an "iron river of guns from the United States arms Mexican drug cartels to the teeth."
Reality check: Resurrecting the so-called "assault weapons ban" that expired in 2004 isn't going to do anything to help the Mexican government deal with drug cartels -- or any other criminal organizations. Nor was the O-Team's decision to stop the Defense Logistics Agency from allowing surplus military brass cartridges to be reloaded going to stop a single bullet from reaching criminals. Thankfully, that inane rule has been reversed, saving law-abiding gun owners -- and our heavily indebted government -- money.

The Mexican drug cartels aren't being armed by law-abiding Americans.

Rather than trying to re-enact meaningless legislation based on the appearance of a firearm or the shape of a magazine, the O-Team and its congressional allies need to focus on securing our borders and providing the resources to enforce the laws we already have on the books. Infringing on the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens won't make Mexicans -- or any of us -- any safer or more secure, no matter how severe the crisis.

©Creators Syndicate

3.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811121310853037.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

National Health Preview
The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood.
 
Praise Mitt Romney. Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country. It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.

In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls. As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

Like gamblers doubling down on their losses, Democrats have already hiked the fines for people who don't obtain insurance under the "individual mandate," already increased business penalties, taxed insurers and hospitals, raised premiums, and pumped up the state tobacco levy. That's still not enough money.

So earlier this year, Mr. Patrick appointed a state commission to figure out how to control costs and preserve "this grand experiment." One objective is to change the incentives for preventative care and treatments for chronic disease, but everyone says that. It sometimes results in better health but always more spending. So-called "pay for performance" financing models, on the other hand, would do away with fee for service -- but they also tend to reward process, not the better results implied.

What are the alternatives? If health planners won't accept the prices set by the marketplace -- thus putting themselves out of work -- the only other choice is limiting care via politics, much as Canada and most of Europe do today. The Patrick panel is considering one option to "exclude coverage of services of low priority/low value." Another would "limit coverage to services that produce the highest value when considering both clinical effectiveness and cost." (Guess who would determine what is high or low value? Not patients or doctors.) Yet another is "a limitation on the total amount of money available for health care services," i.e., an overall spending cap.

The Institute for America's Future -- which is providing the intellectual horsepower (we use the term loosely) for reforms like those in Massachusetts -- argues that the cost overruns prove the state must cap how much insurers are allowed to charge consumers and regulate their profits. If Mr. Patrick doesn't get there first, that is. He reportedly told insurers and hospitals at a closed meeting this month that if they didn't take steps to hold down the rate of medical inflation, he would.

Even the single-payer cheerleaders at the New York Times have caught on to this rolling catastrophe. In a page-one story this month, the paper reported on the "expedient choice" that Mr. Romney and Democrats made to defer "until another day any serious effort to control the state's runaway health costs. . . . Those who led the 2006 effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the legislation had required heavy cost controls. The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent -- doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups -- would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said."

Now they tell us. What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered. But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues. Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional. Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers.

Which brings us to Washington, where Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats are about to try their own Bay State bait and switch: First create vast new entitlements that can never be repealed, then later take the less popular step of rationing care when it's their last hope to save the federal fisc.

The consequences of that deception will be far worse than those in Massachusetts, however, given that prior to 2006 the state already had a far smaller percentage of its population uninsured than the national average. The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.