Socialism In Action In Venezuela

It looks like Hugo Chavez's economic policies aren't exactly having a positive effect on the Venezuelan economy. Caracas now has to ration water because of shortages.

Residents of the Venezuelan capital face cuts in water service for as much as 48 hours per week, after the government imposed rationing to stem a 25 percent shortfall in the city's supply, officials said Monday.

Officials said cuts in water service were to be staggered throughout Caracas through the duration of the current dry season, which is not expected to end until May 2010.

Weather forecasters blame the "El Nino" weather phenomenon, saying the periodic weather system has markedly reduced rainfall and created drought conditions.

Others blame the shortage on poor government management of the country's water resources, while President Hugo Chavez faulted the excesses of capitalism.

"What will the rich fill their swimming pools with?" the country's leftist leader asked recently.

Chavez is quick to blame the rich for the woes, but the government's inability to provide sufficient water should be a warning about Chavez's policies on other areas of the Venezuelan economy.

Instead of planning for the possibility of shortages, his government has sought to ration water and limit usage.

What Does This Say About Cuban Health Care?

Cuba's running out of toilet paper.

Cuba, in the grip of a serious economic crisis, is running short of toilet paper and may not get sufficient supplies until the end of the year, officials with state-run companies said on Friday.

Officials said they were lowering the prices of 24 basic goods to help Cubans get through the difficulties provoked in part by the global financial crisis and three destructive hurricanes that struck the island last year.

Cuba's financial reserves have been depleted by increased spending for imports and reduced export income, which has forced the communist-led government to take extraordinary measures to keep the economy afloat.

"The corporation has taken all the steps so that at the end of the year there will be an important importation of toilet paper," an official with state conglomerate Cimex said on state-run Radio Rebelde.

The shipment will enable the state-run company "to supply this demand that today is presenting problems," he said.

I know what you're thinking.

They're going to have to adopt the Sheryl Crow approach (collective EWWWW).

After all these decades, the regime in Havana will still fight reality at every turn. They'll fight tooth and nail to impose their way with prices on basic goods and services, exacerbating shortages with price controls. Just when you thought that Cuba's situation couldn't get any worse, it finally hits the crapper.

And what does this say about the so-called vaunted Cuban health care system. If they can't even maintain stocks of toilet paper, how can they be providing even adequate health care? Once again, the lie of Cuban health care has been revealed. Sure, everyone has access to "health care" and it's "free", but the reality is that it's substandard (except for those who come to Cuba via medical tourism, and which generates significant income for the regime).

Overspending President Realizes We're Out of Money

President Obama says that we're out of money. That's not a surprise. Quadrupling the national deficit with a bloated budget and spending on a porkfest were part of his plan.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything...

Government spending crushes the private sector and the only part of the economy that is growing is government spending on benefits - its own.

Even with all this, President Obama wants to increase government's intrusion into the private sector by pushing for more government solutions to entitlements that are out of control. Instead of cutting back those entitlements, he's pushing to expand them further.

It's a recipe for disaster, but the President is moving ahead with this plan nonetheless.

Where's the Outrage?

Brazil is in the process of building miles of concrete barriers to prevent slums from expanding in and around Rio de Janeiro. The local government there is building concrete walls to prevent sprawling slums from spreading farther into the picturesque hills of this world-famous tourist destination.

Ace helpfully puts together a list of what qualifies as a good wall versus the ones that are bad. Israel's border fences to prevent terrorists from infiltrating Israel to kill Israelis gets all the press these days, except when the media focuses on the US attempts to control its border to prevent Mexican drug gangs from crossing the border and causing mayhem in US cities and communities up and down the border there.

Yet, there's barely a ripple in the media's interest about Brazil's actions to contain the slums of Rio with massive fences. Where's the world's outrage? Where's the shreiks from the human rights groups about the Brazilian regime's move to curtail the movement of its own citizens?

The Wedge Strategy Revealed Through Executive Compensation Attacks

The outrage over the AIG executive compensation and bonuses was phony and ginned up as I've repeatedly noted over the past few days, since both the Administration and Congress knew of these provisions and chose to exempt them from being regulated as a condition of receiving TARP funds and bailout money.

Instead, it appears that it was meant to lay the groundwork for the Administration to start demanding increased control over executive compensation - all executive compensation.

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Barack Obama's first foreign summit meeting in early April.

Increasing oversight of executive pay has been under consideration for some time, but the decision was made in recent days as public fury over bonuses has spilled into the regulatory effort.

The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could range beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.

One proposal could impose greater requirements on the boards of companies to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to assure that outsize bonuses are not paid before meeting financial goals.

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving U.S. government bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last month, as part of the stimulus package, Congress barred top executives at large banks getting rescue money from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay.

Beyond the pay rules, officials said the regulatory plan is expected to call for a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire

This goes beyond reckless disregard for the market system to imposing a socialist regime on businesses that the Democrats do not like. The government is stoking populist outrage to further its agenda, claiming that executive compensation should be tied to performance.

Businesses already face the risks of poor business performance and compensation for executives is tied to that - even with the golden parachutes. The overwhelming majority of businesses in this country have corporate boards that are responsible for their business actions and will find themselves out of jobs if they do a poor job.

It's hilarious that Democrats are pushing this at a time when their own performance in Congress is abysmal. They're pushing trillions of dollars of spending as far as the eye can see and massively expanding the deficit, both of which would be as fiscally irresponsible as it gets. Yet, the same Democrats are refusing to alter their mandated pay raises. Why should these Congressmembers get raises for poor performances under their own rationale for controlling the private sector compensation system?

What this shows is the Democrats absolute disdain for the market economy and free markets where businesses can contract with employees - in this case business leaders - for compensation packages to manage the affairs of large corporations. If these businesses give outlandish compensation packages and suffer business losses, the outrage belongs on the business leaders and the corporations for the outsized compensation, but it is not the government's place to direct the compensation packages. It is antithetical to the market system and is a socialist answer to a problem that simply doesn't exist.

UPDATE:
Keep in mind that the government has routinely failed to maintain proper oversight based on its existing regulations and attempts to tighten up the lending standards were rebuffed because Democrats feared it would adversely affect minorities. This includes the SEC, which failed to pick up on the Madoff Ponzi scheme and other wrongdoings until the entities involved melted down in full public view. The SEC and Federal Reserve can barely handle its existing responsibilities, and yet the Democrats are pushing for an even larger role. They can't handle their current role.

Case in point is the fact that the SEC failed to engage in proper oversight of companies leading up to the credit meltdown (which led to a Geithner appointee to withdraw her name from consideration). Further, the Treasury Department isn't fully staffed at this late date with Obama appointees to see through any of Obama's policies and that Secretary Geithner continues showing himself to be inept at proffering a credible policy to deal with the ongoing problems in the credit market.

Fear Is the Mind Killer

It's quite instructive to see how President Obama is using fear to demand passage of the porkfest "stimulus" package that will not deliver stimulus in a timely fashion. It isn't even a focused effort. Obama is using a shotgun approach and hoping that something hits that he can hang his hat on to show that this mess has done something to stimulate the economy, even though it is a government stimulus package.

This is so fundamentally different than what FDR did during the Great Depression, when Roosevelt realistically portrayed the economy and focused on the positives to induce spending and growth and economic development. Roosevelt sought to avoid panic, while Obama is describing the situation as catastrophic when it is not the case.

Obama is going in the completely opposite direction by warning of far more catastrophic damage to the economy if the stimulus and TARP 2, the wrath of TARP, doesn't come to pass.

Failing to act may lead to a catastrophe. So, what will acting in a grossly irresponsible and fiscally harmful manner do?

It will make it worse. That's what the CBO says.

Yet, we're supposed to believe that the recession will get worse unless we not only go through with porkfest 2009, but TARP 2, the wrath of TARP, and a player to be named later.

That's at least $2 trillion in spending that Obama wants to unleash without one care what it does to the economy. His only support for such massive spending is the fear of doing nothing, even though experts believe that this recession will end later this year even without any stimulus package.

We have examples of what massive government spending and irresponsible policy have wrought. It's called Japan from the 1980s onwards. They've had a crummy economy for years on end because the government stuck its piehole where it didn't belong, and the private sector suffered horribly for it. Of course, Obama claims that the Japanese government failed in its stimulus package because it didn't sufficiently spend enough money. By that reasoning, even the amounts Obama is talking about aren't going to be enough, and he will demand more.

That's why we're hearing Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner talk about the need for yet another TARP bailout package, which may cost another $1 trillion.

We're going to repeat that same mistake, except Obama hopes that his presence will change things. I've reported on such nonsense before - it's what socialists and Marxists say every time they get their hands on the engines of economy. They will change things and make them right, and all they succeed in doing is destroying economies and causing untold misery.

It's what happened in Zimbabwe. It's what is happening in Venezuela and a whole laundry list of countries around the world who suffered under the socialist delusions that this time - with the right people in charge - socialism will prevail.

Obama's politics and those of the Democrats are expanding government like never before and it undermines the market system and your liberty and freedoms. It puts the federal government in greater control over the economy in ways never before envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and in ways that even FDR would never have contemplated.

UPDATE:
And the Senate Democrats, plus Republicans Collins, Snowe, and Specter, have now gone and thrown its lot in with the trillion dollar porkfest. The final vote was 61-37 approving this nonsense. It's no wonder that the markets are tanking.

Not only did Tim Geithner's little talk about TARP 2 sound the wrong message, but the markets reacted in a bad way.

The markets had been looking for an outcome because they want certainty. They've gotten it. The markets will certainly continue trending down because the porkfest will suck the life out of the private sector.

UPDATE:
Fear is the economy killer. At no time in the past 60 years has the government solution to a recession been a multitrillion dollar plan that is unaffordable and pork-laden. Yet, the Democrats continue pushing the meme that this is the worst crisis in history, and can top the Great Depression unless immediate action is taken.

The statistics tell a different tale.

Democrats Introduce Legislation Opening Up Travel To Cuba

Via anonymous emailer comes word that Democrats in the House have introduced a bill to allow travel from the US to Cuba.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act introduced in the U.S. House on Wednesday would allow American citizens unrestricted travel to Cuba for the first time since 1963. The bill by Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., and eight cosponsors also would lift limits on travel by Cuban exiles living in the United States. The president would not be able to regulate travel to the island unless an armed conflict arose.

Bay of Pigs veteran Miguel Reyes, founder of the Cuban American Club in West Palm Beach, Fla., thinks that the bill doesn't matter much. He has no plans to travel to Cuba and doesn't care if other people do.

"As an American, I think I have the right to go wherever I want to without anyone stopping me," said Reyes, whose views are independent from the club.

"It's a betrayal, and it's not going to resolve anything," said Jose Lopez, president of the Broward County Latin Chamber of Commerce. Lopez left Cuba in 1961.

Tourism dollars spent in Cuba will inject more oxygen into the dying Castro regime, he said. Lopez also thinks Cuban exiles who want to return to the island whenever they please are abusing their refugee privilege.

If passed, it would be the first time that travel between the US and Cuba was allowed since before Fidel Castro rose to power.

Cuba used to be a beautiful country with lovely beaches and it used to have a vibrant travel and tourist industry. Now, it is a shell of its former self, largely because of the collapse of Soviet Union and the lack of capital to support the industry.

While I wouldn't mind a vacation to Cuba at some point in the distant future when the Castros are no longer in any position of power, I think any such travel now would still benefit the privileged classes - those connected to the Castro clan, rather than the people of Cuba who are still oppressed under the harsh restrictions of the Cuban economic and political system.

Then again, unrestricted travel to Cuba would show just how blighted the socialist "paradise" truly is. It would reveal that the vaunted medical care system in Cuba is nothing more than wishful thinking and that medical tourism provides two-tiers of service - one that brings income to Cuba for the privileged (the part that Michael Moore highlights in his agitprop movie Sicko), and the rest of the country gets substandard care that borders on the criminal.

Cuba continues to hold political prisoners and maintains restrictions on speech and conduct of business is strictly regulated. In fact, Cuba's elites are little more than a criminal gang.

Unusually, organized crime in Cuba is run by the state. This is a result of the decision to bolster the Cuban military and intelligence apparatus by granting its top generals control over the lucrative tourism and hospitality industry. The island nation’s security and intelligence apparatus, estimated at 20,000 strong, is part of Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior. This means the Cuban security and intelligence community is also a major business operator on the island, overseeing the country’s booming tourist industry, cigar production and distribution of illicit goods.

Don't expect any of that to change anytime soon.

Yet, the Democrats are looking to change the policy even though the Castro regime has shown that it is unwilling to hold free and fair elections or release political prisoners. It is still a dictatorship.

Slouching Towards Collapse

Venezuela continues slouching towards disaster and [T]hugo Chavez's socialist plans for his country are going down in flames as he no longer has the oil revenues flowing to prop up his plans. Chavez doesn't have the money to pay the contractors who keep the oil industry churning along.

Venezuela’s state oil company is behind on billions in payments to private oil contractors from Oklahoma to Belarus, some of which have now stopped work, even as President Hugo Chavez funnels more oil revenue to social programs.

Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, says unpaid invoices jumped 39 percent in the first nine months of last year — reaching $7.86 billion in September. And that was when world oil was selling for $100 a barrel.

With prices plummeting by more than half, PDVSA is trying to renegotiate some contracts. But analysts say hardball tactics to reduce charges from crucial service providers could backfire by lowering Venezuela’s oil output. And foreign debt markets are reflecting jitters about Venezuela’s finances.

Chavez doesn't have the money to pay for his military expansion, the oil industry, and the folks he needs to buy the votes of in the elections scheduled for later this year. Without the pork projects he hopes will bide him more time among the poor who rely upon such things, Chavez wont have anything to offer Venezuelans other than the usual amount of socialist claptrap and blaming everyone but himself for Venezuela's problems.

Meanwhile, the situation in Zimbabwe isn't improving either. The cholera epidemic shows no signs of letting up as 69,000 cases are now reported.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change's decision to create a unity government with President Robert Mugabe could give authorities a better chance of tackling the disease that has deepened Zimbabwe's hardships.

Zimbabwe's health system has collapsed under an economic crisis that has left eight in 10 people out of employment in the once prosperous country. Poor medical facilities and sanitation have helped spread the cholera.

More than half of Zimbabwe is surviving on food aid and the population is also struggling with the world's highest inflation rate of over 231 million percent as of July last year.

Zimbabwe's parliament passed a constitutional bill last week to allow a coalition government of Mugabe and opposition rivals to be set up under a deal to end the political and economic crisis.

That's a far too optimistic picture of the situation in Zimbabwe given that Mugabe has refused to give up power and the opposition led by Morgan Tsvangirai isn't going to have the power to actually alter the economic policies that led Zimbabwe to ruin. Tsvangirai's deal with Mugabe only allows some foreign assistance to flow, but doesn't address the underlying fundamental problems with the economy, which are due entirely to Mugabe's socialist redistribution policies that have led the country to ruin.

Populist Claptrap Has Real World Consequences

Let's limit executive compensation (not retroactively and limited only to those companies that received substantial federal assistance - leaving the door open to a huge grey area of companies that received some aid but which will continue their compensation packages unaffected by the demands to limit them).

Let's keelhaul companies that received federal funds who then engage in corporate events around the nation, including in Las Vegas or Miami.

That's the chant coming from DC these days and many of those calls cut across the political spectrum.

Is anyone actually paying attention to what happens when those executives get high levels of compensation or companies spend on conventions in places like Las Vegas? Wells Fargo was going to have a corporate event in Vegas, but they've canceled it in the face of public pressure. Did anyone care that it would hurt the Vegas economy, which is already one of the hardest hit regions in the country as the real estate market there imploded? Hardly. The money spent by Wells Fargo employees in Vegas goes to restaurants, hotels, and all other ancillary services in Vegas - an economic stimulus that will now be absent courtesy of the "public outcry". How many millions of dollars of lost tax revenue will occur because Wells Fargo employees aren't renting cars or hotel rooms or spending their money on trinkets or food in Vegas to say nothing of lower casino revenues because there will be that many fewer people spending money in the casinos?

Airlines are suffering because business travel is being scaled back, which means fewer flights, and which in turn means that there's increased pressure to cut workforce that is being idled by lower demand.

Executive pay limits will sharply harm the New York metro economy warns Kathryn Wylde of the Partnership for New York:

Wylde says the Obama salary cap will lead to a critical brain drain – China and the United Arab Emirates have already come to poach Wall Street talent. She also says lower salaries in the financial industry will mean dramatically lower tax revenues for the city and state.

"We also depend heavily on the financial services industry to fund our economy and our tax rolls," said Wylde. "Last year 20 percent of our income taxes in the states – 12 percent in New York City came from Wall Street."

Limiting compensation means other countries will benefit from talent poached domestically, to say nothing of the actual loss of jobs around the city from people who benefit from those executives and those who receive bonuses from the financial services industry. The City and State are already billions in the hole because those financial services companies imploded and sharply limited bonuses as their companies went belly up or started conserving money to have more cash on hand.

At the same time, Congress has no such caps on its own compensation. It can vote itself a raise, even though it is completely undeserving of one. Congress regularly increases its own pay, despite having a rating lower than that of former President Bush. Yet, you have members of Congress demanding caps on compensation.

How about capping Congressional compensation at $75,000 as a sign that Congress can tighten its belt just like the rest of us who are struggling to make ends meet without getting crunched by a crushing tax burden? It's not like Congress is going to starve; there are more than a few millionaires and multimillionaires among the bunch, not counting those who evaded taxes and squirreled away money that no one knows about - Charlie Rangel, I'm talking about you.

How about we enact a law demanding that every politico and nominee is subjected to an IRS audit annually just to be sure who's reporting what and these pretentious politicos can call for tax hikes even as we learn that they're evading their tax obligations often for years at a time (Tom Daschle, I'm talking to you; Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, you too!)

Rep. Barney Frank is complaining that President Bush did little to limit executive compensation, which tells you all you need to know about the disdain Frank and his fellow leftists have for the market setting compensation rates. He'd much rather have the government pick and choose the compensation. Frank is also seeking to impose the executive compensation restrictions retroactively.

People may be cheering about the idea that executive compensation will be limited, but why is the government any better at arbitrarily and capriciously setting compensation than it is at managing our roads, infrastructure, schools, or anything else that it has its hands on? It isn't. It is just another peg towards government intrusion into your pocketbooks and your liberty.

Zimbabwe Crumbles, Mugabe's Wife Goes Globetrotting On Photographer's Face

This is typical. Dictators and tyrants love to maintain their own status and wealth, and could care less what happens to their countries. Robert Mugabe's government just had to unveil a $100 trillion dollar note to combat inflation that causes a doubling of prices every day (officially rated 231 million percent).

Mugabe continues to do everything imaginable to maintain his grip on power despite losing elections to Morgan Tsvangirai. Power sharing just isn't in the cards no matter what the diplomats say. Mugabe will not let go of his ruinous power. Indeed, it would be political suicide for Tsvangirai to enter into any such deal that allows Mugabe to stay in power.

Robert Mugabe's wife is busy running around the world spending like there's no tomorrow. She was in Paris and then went on to Hong Kong, where she assaulted a photographer.

Richard Jones told The Associated Press that Grace Mugabe, 43, ordered a bodyguard to hold him down and then attacked him herself Thursday near the Shangri-La hotel on Hong Kong's Kowloon peninsula.

"She directed several punches into my face," Jones said. "She was wearing diamond-encrusted rings, which caused a lot of lacerations."

Jones, 42, from Machen in South Wales, was on a freelance assignment for the Sunday Times.

He said he suffered at least 10 cuts to his face but did not require hospitalization.

"She was screaming, completely crazy," the Times quoted a witness, Austrian tourist Werner Zapletal, as saying in a report Sunday.

Police spokeswoman Odelia Tam said police are investigating the alleged attack but have not made any arrests. She said she did not know the identity of the alleged attacker.

Calls seeking comment Sunday from the Zimbabwean Embassy in Beijing went unanswered.

Classy. I wonder where she gets it from.

UPDATE:
Added the link to Zimbabwe introducing the $100 trillion note.

The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe said the new notes that includes 50 trillion, 20 trillion and 10 trillion would be released for the "convenience of the public," according to statement released Thursday.

"In a move meant to ensure that the public has access to their money from banks, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has introduced a new family of bank notes which will gradually come into circulation, starting with the 10 trillion Zimbabwe dollar," the bank said in its announcement.

The new 100 trillion dollar bill would be worth about $300 in U.S. currency. A loaf of bread in Zimbabwe now costs about 300 billion Zimbabwean dollars -- and like most commodities, the price increases every day.

The convenience they speak of is that Zimbabweans wouldn't need to bring 18-wheelers with them to carry the amount of money needed to buy a loaf of bread. That is, if they could find the money to pay for one; much of the country is destitute and living below poverty lines that borders on starvation and barely subsisting.

No Salvation For Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe continues to cling to his power with ruthless determination. He's busy blaming everyone but himself for the current situation in his country. Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket of Africa, but now is suffering from rampant starvation and preventable diseases like cholera are rampaging through the country.

Mugabe has claimed that the cholera outbreak was due to the US and British engaging in biological warfare and simultaneously claimed that there was no such outbreak.

Today's latest outrage is that he's broken off talks with Morgan Tsvangirai's opposition party over power sharing.

"Zimbabwe is mine" says Mugabe.

"I will never, never, never, never surrender. Zimbabwe is mine, I am a Zimbabwean. Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe never for the British, Britain for the British," Mugabe told his party’s annual conference.

The veteran leader in the former British colony said he would remain until "his people decide to change him."

While the comments struck a familiar tone for the 84-year-old leader - he said earlier this year that only God could remove him from office - he now faces increasingly grim circumstances in his crippled country.

That's all you need to know about this sick and demented thug who has destroyed a country and sent neighboring countries scurrying about to deal with the overflowing humanity trying to gain medical care and refuge from Mugabe's regime.

Mugabe threw the elections twice and refused to step down. He's refused to share power with the opposition party, and nothing short of a coup will remove him from power as the military and his thugs continue to support him.

Mugabe's stay in power could have been shortened had the South Africans taken a stronger stand against his thuggish behavior leading up to the elections in March and their support of Mugabe in the aftermath of the disputed election is despicable.

Mugabe is also boasting that no other African nation will come and topple him. On that, Mugabe is right. The African Union is powerless to deal with this thug especially with countries like South Africa opposed to military action, and the humanitarian crisis will persist as long as the Zimbabwean people remain under his control.

By refusing to take military action against Zimbabwe, South Africa is contributing to the continuing mess by reducing the pressure on Mugabe to step aside for the benefit of the Zimbabwean people.

Zimbabwe Claims US and UK Plotting Invasion

Robert Mugabe has thoroughly destroyed his country economically, politically, and socially, and is now hoping that a little anti-American hatred will keep him in power for just a little while longer.

Zimbabwe's president has accused the UK and US of plotting an invasion in the wake of the cholera outbreak.

A presidential spokesman told state media they would not be surprised if the British and Americans tried to "spring a 'mission'" involving the UN.

It came as a regional delegation continued its visit to Zimbabwe to assess the escalating outbreak.

Meanwhile, South Africa's health minister visited border towns with Zimbabwe where the epidemic has spread.

On Monday, European Union nations ramped up the diplomatic pressure on Zimbabwe's government, broadening sanctions on President Robert Mugabe and his inner circle, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy added his voice to the growing calls for the end of the 84-year-old's rule.

Mugabe has destroyed the Zimbabwean infrastructure and inflation now results in prices doubling every 24 hours - an inflation rate of 231 million percent.

There's no easy answer for how to stabilize the situation in Zimbabwe, but every solution starts with one step - removing Mugabe from the equation. He's the cause of all the misery and death and destruction, and his removal would go a long way to beginning the long road to reconstructing what was once the breadbasket of Africa.

Mugabe's spokesthugs are busy saying that the US and UK will use the cholera epidemic as a pretext for taking action against Mugabe. I don't see the UN acting anytime soon based on an epidemic given that they shrugged their shoulders at Mugabe stealing multiple elections to remain in power. A few Zimbabweans dying isn't going to convince the UN of acting either. It's to the UN's shame (if they ever could feel shame, that is) that the UN and the world has failed to act and stop Mugabe's ruinous reign of power.

Zimbabwean Misery Continues

You have to give Robert Mugabe credit for being consistent. He consistently seeks to destroy the Zimbabwean people with his insane leftist agenda that has completely destroyed the economy and devastated the infrastructure of the country to the point that we're now seeing a major cholera epidemic taking hold not only in Zimbabwe, but in neighboring countries where Zimbabweans are seeking treatment. Nearly 600 are dead and tens of thousands are suffering from the effects of cholera, and the situation will only get worse unless and until Mugabe is sent packing:

Cholera, a water-borne disease, is on the increase in nine of Zimbabwe's 10 provinces, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) warned. It blamed "poor water and sanitation supply, a collapsed health system and limited government capacity to respond to the emergency."

Many of those afflicted with the disease have fled to neighboring countries to seek medical health -- which risks spreading the outbreak still further.

Brown called on the international community to tell Mugabe "enough is enough," and suggested that the United Nations Security Council meet to discuss the issue.

He added that the most pressing issue was to ensure that testing and rehydration equipment and packs reach the right people, as well as for aid agencies to set up a organizational structure in the state capital Harare to confront the disease.

"The people of Zimbabwe voted for a better future. It is our duty to support that aspiration," Brown added.

Brown's comments came one day after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the outbreak is the latest sign that Mugabe's rule over the country must end.

"It's well past time for Robert Mugabe to leave. I think that's now obvious," Rice said during a visit to Denmark.

It was obvious for years that Mugabe has destroyed the nation of Zimbabwe. We're reaching the point where Mugabe's destructive and corrosive policies are seriously affecting Zimbabwe's neighbors and Mugabe's insistence on holding on to power at all costs is costing Zimbabweans dearly.

His economic policies have led to hyperinflation - 231 million percent. The Zimbabwean central bank has fired several executives claiming that they were engaging in illicit currency trading.

The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has been unable to print money fast enough to keep up with soaring prices, which double every 24 hours, and has tried to stamp out a thriving black market for U.S. dollars and other foreign currencies.

This week it dismissed the chief executives and senior managers at four banks, state media reported, saying they diverted large sums of Zimbabwean dollars to the black market before the notes were introduced.

"This is criminal because the money was not yet legal tender when it was released," central bank Governor Gideon Gono was quoted as saying in the Herald newspaper, adding the executives faced prosecution.

Refering to past media reports that suggested the central bank itself had in the past purchased foreign currency from the black market, Gono said: "We are sick and tired of being labelled crooks."

The situation is such that it is probably better to consider that Zimbabwe doesn't have a functioning currency in place at all. It certainly doesn't have a functioning economy, thanks to Mugabe.

Monopoly money has more value than the Zimbabwean currency.

All the reports about talks between Mugabe's people and the opposition party led by Morgan Tsvangirai have led nowhere, and Mugabe continues push the country deeper into crisis.

Death in a Time of Cholera and Economic Disaster

Cholera is a disease that is entirely preventable if good sanitation practices are used. It requires proper sanitation and a sound infrastructure.

Both are completely and utterly lacking in Zimbabwe as a result of Robert Mugabe's disastrous and ruinous economic policies. The country simply is disintegrating as a result of his socialist and redistributionist racist policies that have turned the breadbasket of Africa into a basket case.

550 people are dead, and thousands more are ill from the disease.

Authorities in Zimbabwe have declared a cholera outbreak that has killed more than 550 people to be a national emergency, state media reports.

Health Minister David Parirenyatwa said hospitals were in urgent need of medicine, food and equipment and were suffering a critical staff shortage.

Zimbabwe is appealing for international help urgently to tackle the outbreak, which they had said was under control.

At the same time, Mugabe's policies are finally hitting his last bastion of support; the military.

Meanwhile 16 soldiers have been held over disorder in Harare, say reports.

The Zimbabwean police told the state-owned Herald newspaper that 10 of the soldiers were detained over a looting spree on Monday which broke out after the central bank said it did not have the money to pay defence force members queuing for wages.

The other six were part of a group that reportedly looted shops and battled riot police last week.

Zimbabwe's defence minister has blamed the disturbances on an unruly minority in the army, and promised to punish the culprits.

Of course, that same military decided to attack a bunch of doctors protesting the vile conditions within the country and pressed for more assistance from the government.

And the current economic woes have absolutely nothing to do with the credit crunch in the US. This is a wholly self-inflicted disaster of epic proportions with hyperinflation now reaching 231 million percent. Prior attempts to measure the inflation found a rate of 1-2 million percent, but this takes it to a whole new level. Zimbabweans simply can't print money fast enough between the time they walk out the door and they want to buy a piece of bread (if they can find it).

Something has to give here, and I suspect that the Mugabe government will find itself in a whole world of hurt before long. Of course, Zimbabweans will be suffering for years attempting to recover from Mugabe's disastrous reign of power.

Venezuela Votes

Venezuela is voting in municipal elections and it once again holds the future of Hugo Chavez's socialist agenda in the crosshairs.

Chavez has said the vote — held one year after he suffered his first electoral defeat — could decide "the future of the revolution, the future of socialism and also the future of Hugo Chavez."

Early turnout was high as Venezuelans formed long lines to cast ballots for governors, mayors and other local officials.

After a decade in office, Chavez still enjoys widespread popularity and has maintained control of most local posts. But last year's defeat of his attempt to abolish term limits has energized the opposition, which has sought to capitalize on complaints about rampant crime, corruption and inflation.

The vote could either hand Chavez another setback or help him lay the groundwork to extend his rule beyond 2013, when his six-year term ends.

Chavez said after casting his ballot that Venezuela's democracy is "demonstrating its strength once again" and that its automated voting system is one of the most "transparent, quickest, most secure in the world."

He urged all to respect the outcome and said, "We're prepared to recognize any result."

Pre-election polls showed Chavez's candidates leading in a majority of races, while the opposition was ahead or in tight races in several of Venezuela's most populous states.

Aquiles Vera, a 47-year-old construction worker who voted in a Caracas slum, said he supported Chavez's candidates and believed the president's ability to stay in office was at stake.

Let's just say I'm not exactly trusting Chavez to keep his word that he'll abide by the outcome of the vote if it goes against him. He's already shown that he's more than willing to try and circumvent the vote by attempting to push through laws to extend the term of his office, and impose his socialist agenda regardless of the damage it has already done to the Venezuelan economy.

Obama Keeps Defining Rich Down

First it was $250,000. Then it was $200,000. Now, we've got Obama and his fellow Democrats saying $50-70,000. Yeah, do you feel richer for knowing that you're now considered rich by the Obama campaign and its Democratic party allies?

Hillbuzz has the video.



As I pointed out yesterday, Obama's plans for the coal industry would amount to yet another tax on everyone - regardless of your income level. The cap and trade fees would be passed on to the end users; the companies that don't go bankrupt would be forced to pass on the costs to the consumers. Everyone would pay higher energy costs as a result because 50% of the nation's electricity is generated from coal.

Obama's Judicial Philosophy Comports With Redistribution of Wealth

Yesterday's revelations about Sen. Barack Obama's legal philosophy relating to the redistribution of wealth should be a warning sign to anyone who thinks that Sen. Obama will not engage in a massive shift in how the government does business and sticks its nose into your personal business and affairs.

Obama clearly believes that the Warren Court was insufficiently radical for his tastes, and that experience may have soured him on the idea that the courts could be used to further his agenda of redistribution of wealth. Obama has been tied to that agenda for years, as audio interviews have repeatedly shown, although the media isn't willing to highlight that particular fact.

He's clearly intent upon fashioning the courts in his own image. It's a recurring theme Obama hits time and time again over the years. That's the prerogative of the President of the United States and clearly within his power. However, we should look far closer at what that entails than the media has been willing to do. Obama will likely appoint legal scholars and experts whose judicial philosophy meshes with his own, meaning that he's going to push for judges who see the idea of redistribution of wealth as their goal as well. The court system is supposed to run by the rule of law, and Obama's judicial philosophy would turn that on its ear:

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

Obama's political leanings would institute radical changes in how courts decide on the law, and opens the door for all manner of chicanery that throws the rule of law out the window in favor of pushing for new and expanded Constitutional rights that aren't present in the Constitution. By establishing such new rights out of the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, the rule of law gets thrown by the wayside.

Obama clearly doesn't consider the Constitution to be an ironclad document, but rather a living, breathing document that can and must be changed wholesale by activist judges who will find whatever it is they're looking to support by reading between the lines.

It allows the courts to legislate from the Bench, and considering that Democrats claim to be poised to solidify their majorities in Congress, a President Obama would be in a powerful position to ram through his corrosive agenda with all the means at his disposal. Obama's concerns that the courts are not the right forum to push through an economic justice agenda would fall by the wayside if the rest of the government; Congress and the Executive are wholly within the control of the Democratic party.

Obama's supporters in Congress are already considering the notion of a Second Bill of Rights, which would guarantee all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.

Consider that Obama is already moving the goalposts on his tax and spend agenda. Previously, he claimed that only those with incomes above $250,000 would be hit by tax increases. That has now become $200,000. Watch that level continue to drop as Obama searches for ways to pay for his tax and spend schemes, which are redistributive in nature - giving refundable tax credits to those who already pay no taxes.

Obama's social justice agenda, which is redistribution of wealth and socialism by its very terms, is not what the nation wants or needs.

Mickey Kaus seems to think that this isn't far from what Democrats have traditionally said, albeit in slightly different terms. Obama is far more audacious in what he's proposing, and Democrats in general are pushing for a leftward lurch in the American polity that I think Kaus will find himself greatly dismayed over what Obama seeks to impose.

UPDATE:
The media repeatedly has done the American public a grave disservice by failing to report on Obama's economic policies and history. As Ed Morrissey points out in his reporting on Obama's 1996 statements about redistribution of wealth above, all the evidence is there that Obama was pushing redistribution of wealth and socialist ideals. He said as much to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, who happened to endorse Obama for his run in the Illinois Legislature. The media could have reported on this, but chose not to. This information was available and accessible online, and yet the media chose not to highlight it.

Why haven't they? Would it reveal too many uncomfortable truths about Obama's real economic and social agenda? It most certainly would. From 1996:

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama's campaign is "what does it take to create productive communities", not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first is "human capital development". By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a "workforce preparation strategy". Public education requires equality in funding. It's not that money is the only solution to public education's problems but it's a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it's also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By "workforce preparation strategy", Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

Note too what Obama says about those in business and their ability to run companies. He clearly believes that the owners of businesses who make decisions to hire and fire and take salaries cannot be trusted to do so, and that the government should be the ones to impose "economic justice" on the situation.

That's socialism in a nutshell.

Obama In His Own Words

The whole notion that Sen. Barack Obama was not intent upon engaging in socialism when he encountered Joe the Plumber is laughable. He's been preaching this kind of claptrap for years, and Naked Emperor News uncovered audio (also directly from the public radio station itself) of him suggesting that the courts should have engaged in redistribution of wealth just as surely as they moved forward with civil rights. A full transcript of Obama's policy pronouncements from a 2001 Chicago Public Radio appearance is here.

Obama is okay with spreading the wealth by any means necessary.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent, as radical as, I think, people try to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical; it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Beyond this, his fundamental belief in what the Constitution means and represents is backwards. Obama opined

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

Hogwash.

The US Constitution is a document that limits the rights of government to infringe on the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was deemed necessary so as to spell out explicitly what some of those rights were in order for the Constitution to be ratified. Government action is necessarily limited to what the Constitution allows, and not a limitation on what the citizens can or cannot do. Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded and enabled the government to enter new areas of control, expanding the Commerce Clause powers, eroding the rights of the people. In some cases, the Court's tortured logic and reasoning expanding government power was because earlier cases engaged in faulty and flawed logic itself.

David Bernstein notes that Obama's political ascent reflects a belief that the courts are not where social changes are made, but rather made on the ground. Bernstein also notes that it should come as no surprise that Obama's looking to increase the wealth among the poor and down trodden; that's part and parcel of the liberal philosophy. On that, I agree. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Obama's pushing a leftist agenda; the question is just how far to the left he's going. I posit that he's clearly the most left leaning major party candidate in decades and should be repudiated as such. The nation tried the Great Society, and it failed miserably. The New Deal was largely a failure, and yet Obama's domestic policy prescriptions would create new social programs in line with those earlier failures as though they will somehow work this time.

UPDATE:
I've been having a running discussion with anonymous emailer, and in the course of that discussion, I brought up the New Jersey court's role in pushing redistribution of income in the form of Abbott districts. New Jersey's courts have essentially stated that the state's taxpayers must subsidize 31 under performing education district to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year (billions spent so far), and without any measurable increase in student performance. Trenton recently expanded the redistribution of taxpayer money even further - sweetening the pot so that the latest budget could get passed by increasing the number of districts that could get education money from the state. The thinking was that if more districts were given money, the redistribution would be acceptable, even ignoring the fact that the increase in money has shown no tangible improvements.

So why are those districts opposed to paying more for the under performing districts if the money isn't showing an improvement? Simple. Those districts could cut their already exorbitant taxes or spend the money elsewhere.

While Obama thinks that the redistribution of wealth via the court system isn't the best use of time and efforts, he's not opposed to doing so. As President, he would clearly have that opportunity on a national scale.

Why Settle For An Obama-Inspired Crisis?

Just ask Joe Biden. He knows that our nation's enemies are going to test Sen. Barack Obama within months of taking the White House to take a measure of the man.

ANNOUNCER: Listen to Joe Biden. Talking about what electing Barack Obama will mean.

JOE BIDEN: Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.

The world is looking. We’re going to have an international crisis … to test the mettle of this guy.

I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.

ANNOUNCER: It doesn’t have to happen. Vote McCain.

This ad cuts to the heart of the problem with Obama (okay, one of many problems with Obama). He's simply too inexperienced. Comparisons with Gov. Sarah Palin don't cut it either. Palin isn't running at the top of the ticket. Obama is. Biden knows this to be true, and most Americans should realize this as well.

The stock markets are likely factoring in Obama's economic policies as well. They know that if Obama gets his way, combined with a Democratic Congress led by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that taxes on investments are only going to increase at a time when people are barely able to tread water. It would be an anchor that sinks millions of people everywhere.

When Democrats start floating ideas about nationalizing 401(k) plans and redistributing wealth, it gets the folks who create that wealth jittery.

UPDATE:
Let me be explicitly clear. By investor class, I mean pretty much everyone. Many people have money in the stock market as part of their 401(k) plans, work for companies that rely on the stock markets to raise capital, or are otherwise tied to how well the overall stock market does (not just how the DJIA 30 does). If Obama's tax and spend policies come to fruition, capital gains taxes will increase significantly, sapping the markets at a time when they can least afford it. It's akin to giving a person treading water an anchor around their feet.

Getting to Know the Real Bill Ayers

I've written at great length about the terrorist Bill Ayers and his connections to Sen. Barack Obama. The media has been quite obtuse about those connections and has failed to inform the public about the true nature of that relationship, to say nothing of who Bill Ayers actually is.

Don't take my word for it. Consider what Ayers and his fellow terrorists in the Weather Underground had to say. They published a manifesto to espouse their views. Zombie has the full details and is doing the job the media simply wouldn't do.

This material was available for the media to locate.

It shows that Ayers wasn't simply a terrorist agitating for the end of the Vietnam War, but was actively agitating and rooting for the communists to win. Ayers and his fellow terrorist/revolutionaries held Che Guevera in the highest regard, and sought to replicate his tactics.

And it's also important to note that Ayers considered socialism preferable to capitalism:

Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions. Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all.

Ayers continues writing about those very themes to this day.

It is quite simply impossible for anyone coming into contact with Ayers to this day to not know about Ayers political views and how he espouses socialist/Marxist claptrap to everyone and tries to indoctrinate future generations through his position as a college professor. Ayers made no effort to hide his socialist/Marxist views. In other words, it is impossible to believe that Obama did not know of Ayers radical leftist point of view, his dedication to overthrowing the current economic system, and imposition of socialism. Ayers website continues to parrot the socialist/Marxist positions.

He continues to attempt to profit off his terrorist days, and yet Obama has claimed that he was just a guy from down the street, even as he's worked in the same offices, sat on the Board of organizations alongside Ayers, and launched his political career in Ayers home (along with Ayers wife Bernadine Dohrn).

That Obama continued to associate with Ayers and Dohrn for years on end speaks loudly about Obama's lack of judgment. Obama's politics are far outside the mainstream of American polity, no matter how much he attempts to bamboozle the electorate with claims of moderation. He will say anything and do anything to win an election, including lying about his background and affiliation with one of the most extreme radical leftists in our nation's history.

Of course, there will be some who will defend that association claiming that Ayers and Dohrn were accepted by academia and the Chicago political machine, but I counter that that very fact is quite a damning indictment on the judgment and character of those as well. These two figures were the most radical leftists of their generation, and they continue to espouse that same radical leftist hatred of this nation, but have been given the sheen of respectability by academia and the Chicago political scene. That doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't make it acceptable for Obama to have been associating with them for as long as he did.

It also gets people wondering about how Obama's own political views were shaped by that association. On that question, things get more murky, particularly because Obama has done quite a bit to obfuscate and hide his connections. There is some evidence that suggests that Ayers was the ghostwriter of Obama's books. If that's indeed the case, then Obama's connections to Ayers is far more deep and troubling than indicated to date.

Again, this goes to the credibility, judgment and character of Sen. Obama to lead this nation and to hold true to the nation's founding principles, including capitalism and the free market.

UPDATE:
To hammer home just how extreme Ayers was, consider what Bob Owens found about Ayers and the Weather Underground intentions to "fix" the nation's woes:

I asked, "well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" and the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

That's testimony of FBI informant Larry Grathwohl in the 1982 documentary No Place to Hide and he's speaking of Ayers, Dohrn, and the Weather Underground. This was no mere coffee klatch. It was a group that sought revolution and remaking the US in the image of the Killing Fields.

UPDATE:
It's come to my attention that Jack Cashill, who proffers the notion that Ayers was the ghost writer of Obama's book, has a less than reputable history, and has engaged in conspiracy theories in the past. I've struck the reference to his claims on that basis.