Click Cartoon for Larger Size
To help strengthen his push for greater regulation of Wall Street, Barack Obama is demonizing Goldman Sachs as being corrupt and not looking out for "the little guy."
Then who has Goldman Sachs been looking out for? Oddly enough, it's Barack Obama.
In 2005, Republicans wanted additional regulatory power over lending institutions - including the soon-to-fail Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Democrats, including Senator Obama of Illinois, unanimously opposed it.
Which is why, in 2008, Goldman Sachs and its employees said "thank you" by giving candidate Obama over $950,000 in campaign funds. In fact, it was the largest single source campaign contribution since the beginning of campaign finance reform.
(As an interesting aside, in taking the money Obama broke a solemn campaign promise and an agreement with John McCain that he would run only on public funds to avoid corruption and influence peddling. In fairness, John McCain was pretty much the only person who actually believed him.)
Since January of 2009, Goldman Sachs has passed out another $900,000 in campaign funds...69% of which went to Democrats. And surely they expect to get a good return on their investment.
The financial regulation proposed by the Obama administration will be bad for Wall Street in general, but not particularly hard on those devilish companies that had the foresight to, in the words of one financial services lobbyist, give the Democrats "an assload of money."
Click Cartoon for Larger Size
As expected, the mainstream media used the occasion of "Earth Day" to repeat and promote the many myths and distortions about man-caused climate change. And Climategate? Sorry, never heard of it.
The push is well-timed (not coincidentally) to help lay the groundwork for the introduction of "Cap and Trade" legislation next week...which some are accurately calling a "Global Warming Tax."
Here at Hope n' Change, we're all for trees, forests, clean air, clean water, recycling, energy conservation and other green-friendly ideas. But we're also rather partial to science. And when it comes to man-caused climate change - let alone a new tax to "change the change" - we think it has more than a passing resemblance to what a bear does in the woods...
Click Cartoon for Larger Size
FAIR WARNING: We have to apologize in advance that today's topic is disturbing...and if you had a hard time with the cartoon, you may want to skip the details in the link below. That being said, we really DO have a point to make beyond pure revulsion.
The Supreme Court has struck down a law intended to prevent the spread of so-called "Crush videos," in which women torture and kill small animals while engaging in sexual language. The reason given is that the law, as written, was overly broad...and so is a violation of Constitutionally protected free speech.
This is not a partisan issue. The court voted 8-1 to strike down the law, both conservatives and liberals, and we can only imagine the distaste and reluctance of the justices who cast those votes in order to protect the right of free speech.
The justices understood the absolutely critical and essential importance of free speech to our country. But if such horrendous "speech" is protected...what kind of speech should not be protected?
According to the mainstream media, complaints about taxes, the national debt, and lack of transparency or accountability in government are being described as "seditious," especially when uttered by people like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.
All of which is to say that the Supreme Court understands the importance of free speech, and those who are attacking conservatives and the Tea Party movement (including an all-too-visible Bill Clinton) do not. And make no mistake- the enemies of Constitutionally protected speech, whether by intent or ignorance - are dangerous enemies of freedom.
Postscript: the Supreme Court has said that a more narrowly worded law against "crush videos" probably would pass Constitutional muster, and we certainly hope that lawmakers will waste no time in getting one enacted.
