“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” - Mao Zedong
….the goal is to eliminate your political power
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” - Mao Zedong
….the goal is to eliminate your political power
“This is a disastrous monetary policy; it’s kamikaze monetary policy” – Peter Schiff, CEO Of Euro Pacific Capital
Was I referring to Mr. Schiff with my headline? No. Peter Schiff put it much more succinct which is always useful in this age of attention deficits. Actually my headline was referring to the following quote from credit rating agency Egan-Jones.
“[T]he FED’s QE3 will stoke the stock market and commodity prices, but in our opinion will hurt the US economy and, by extension, credit quality. Issuing additional currency and depressing interest rates via the purchasing of MBS does little to raise the real GDP of the US, but does (will*) reduce the value of the dollar (because of the increase in money supply), and in turn increase the cost of commodities (see the recent rise in the prices of energy, gold, and other commodities). The increased cost of commodities will pressure profitability of businesses, and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power. Hence, in our opinion QE3 will be detrimental to credit quality for the US….” -Credit Rating Agency Egan-Jones
If this didn’t quite sink in just read the word in bold and you will see why I began this post with a quote from Peter Schiff
Mike Cornelison June 27, 2012

Today, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on the constituionality of Obamacare, so in my second post in the Obama vs. Obama series, I will compare and contrast Obama the exaulted teleprompter reader with Obama the sociopathic sellout and demonstrate how the president’s split personalities have manifested themselves in his “signature achievement.”
From the moment Obama took office, while the economy grew worse and worse and the job picture for Americans bleaker by the day, instead of addressing the economy, his Democrat-controlled Congress was completely consumed with trying to invent Obamacare and then pass it. While Congress was stuck in the mire of the health care swamp, most Americans were angry, saying, “Forget all that and get this economy turned around!”
By the time the fourteen-month ordeal was finally over, any hopes supporters may have had for a national celebration over Obamacare’s passage were dashed. The widespread unpopularity of the bill was undeniable, as shown in this list of all the major polls from March 2010:

And over two years later, Obamacare is still unpopular by a wide margin to this very day: Read rest of article here
America was born as a refuge from tyranny: Pilgrims traveled here to escape religious tyranny; protesters challenged the tyranny of the British Parliament at the Boston Tea Party; the Declaration of Independence was a poetic derision of the tyranny of King George of Great Britain over the states. It declared that God had endowed every person with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our National Anthem proclaims we are the land of the free and the home of the brave, and our Constitution was crafted to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address: “..that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

One of the great differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will freely admit that they have an ideology. We’re kind of dorks that way, squabbling over old texts like Dungeons and Dragons geeks, wearing ties with pictures of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on them.
Barack Obama
But mainstream liberals from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama — and the intellectuals and journalists who love them — often assert that they are simply dispassionate slaves to the facts; they are realists, pragmatists, empiricists. Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the “reality-based community,” and if only their Republican opponents weren’t so blinded by ideology and stupidity, then they could work with them.
This has been a theme of Obama’s presidency from the start. A couple of days before his inauguration,Obama proclaimed: “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives — from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry” (an odd pronouncement, given that “bigoted” America had just elected its first black president).
In his inaugural address, he explained that “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”
Whether the president who had to learn, in his own words, that there’s “no such thing” as shovel-ready projects — after blowing billions of stimulus dollars on them — is truly focused on “what works” is a subject for another day. But the phrase is a perfect example of the way liberals speak in code when they want to make an ideological argument without conceding that that is what they are doing. They hide ideological claims in rhetorical Trojan horses, hoping to conquer terrain unearned by real debate.
Of course, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats when it comes to reducing arguments to bumper stickers. (Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has written that “the president’s economic experiment has failed. It is time to get back to what we know works.”) But the vast majority of Republicans, Ryan included, will at least acknowledge their ideological first principles — free markets, limited government, property rights. Liberals are terribly reluctant to do likewise. Instead, they often speak in seemingly harmless cliches that they hope will penetrate our mental defenses.
Here are some of the most egregious examples:
‘Diversity is strength’
Affirmative action used to be defended on the grounds that certain groups, particularly African Americans, are entitled to extra help because of the horrible legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism. Whatever objections opponents may raise to that claim, it’s a legitimate moral argument.
But that argument has been abandoned in recent years and replaced with a far less plausible and far more ideological claim: that enforced diversity is a permanent necessity. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, famously declared: “Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare.”
It’s a nice thought. But consider some of the great minds of human history, and it’s striking how few were educated in a diverse environment. Newton, Galileo and Einstein had little exposure to Asians or Africans. The genius of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato cannot be easily correlated with the number of non-Greeks with whom they chatted in the town square. If diversity is essential to education, let us get to work dismantling historically black and women’s colleges. When I visit campuses, it’s common to see black and white students eating, studying and socializing separately. This is rounding out everyone’s education?
Order Jonah Goldberg’s book The Tyranny Of Cliches
From the desk of Mike Cornelison
So yesterday, I shared with you an exclusive sneak-peak preview of the unreleased new video for the FORWARD campaign, so we now know what the official campaign slogan is going to be, but maybe even more fascinating is finding out what other slogans were being considered and what slogans almost made the cut.
Through my inside sources at the Obama campaign, I have obtained a copy of the final list of campaign slogans that under consideration! It’s the . . .