Saturday, February 28, 2009

Obama and Iraq

I saw this nugget in a Yahoo news story about Obama's plans for Iraq.

Even after the drawdown, a force of as many as 50,000 troops will remain, which has caused heartache among anti-war Democrats who wanted a fuller pullout.

Heartache? Why does leaving a large U.S. force in Iraq cause the left "heartache"? Surely it's not because of mounting GI casualties. Today, it's safer for an American soldier to walk the streets of Fallujah than an American citizen to do the same in Detroit, U.S.A. No. It's because leaving a large U.S. force in Iraq almost guarantees a stable, democratic American ally in the Arab Muslim middle east. In other words, a U.S. military victory resulting in the potential for real, long lasting peace in the region. And its architect? George W. Bush. Angina indeed!

Also, see the WSJ editorial today analyzing those Obama Iraq decisions and how they mirror and validate the Bush strategy.

Hot Air

Well, he’s going to try to do it after all. Even the burden of having to pay for that noxious ‘stimulus’ bill still hasn’t assuaged his appetite for destructive spending. President Obama announced in his State of the Union Address that he plans to ask Congress to impose an onerous cap and trade scheme. See yesterday’s (2/27) WSJ editorial for a good analysis of its ramifications. ). And the putative reason for doing it? To mitigate the effects of ‘global warming’.

This is what the climate change faithful would have you believe :
1. The world has experienced a warming trend
2. This trend will continue inexorably for the foreseeable future
3. Global warming is, on balance, bad
4. Humanity is causing GW
5. The specific predominant human contribution to GW is CO2 production
6. Only a significant reduction in human produced CO2 will mitigate the harmful effects of GW
7. We have the means to effect this significant reduction
8. We have the will to do it (i.e. - China and India will go along)
9. The benefits of pursuing these reductions exceed the costs (i.e. – even if the costs are so high they cause, say, a worldwide economic collapse, not acting will be worse, say, a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario)

Note that if one of these points is invalid, the following points become moot. For example, if humanity is not the cause of global warming, it doesn’t matter whether or not we have the means to significantly reduce CO2 production.
Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish academician and author, is a believer in points 1-5. He believes that GW is real, it’s bad for the world (on balance) and it is predominantly caused by human CO2 production. However, he sees the current concern over global warming as grossly overstated and thinks that the measures being considered to combat GW (such as the Kyoto Protocol) are wasteful at best and very harmful at worst. Read Lomborg’s book, “Cool It”, for a succinct explanation of his views. Also watch the video on YouTube of him giving a lecture on managing climate change. It’s about 30 minutes long and is both informative and entertaining. His genius is quantitating costs and benefits, something policy makers almost never do. Listen to him and you’ll know why Al Gore backed down from his invitation for a debate.
There is an even stronger view, held by many in the scientific community, that the whole theory linking GW to CO2 emissions is wrong. And no, these people are not on a par with “Holocaust deniers”. There is presently a petition circulating on the web, ( which rejects the ‘consensus’ view of GW. Over 31,000 scientists have signed it to date. Being a scientist myself, I know a few of the signers and they are all quite intelligent (all have PhDs) and thoughtful. Also, If you can, get hold of a copy of the DVD, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, a BBC(!) produced documentary. It’s not easy to find. I had to order it from in the U.K. The documentary’s thesis is that only point 1 (and possibly 2) is valid, but there are other factors, most likely solar cycles, that are far more important than CO2. The claim is also made that GW is not necessarily a bad thing.
Of course, now there’s evidence that GW has stopped altogether and a global cooling period has begun. And GC would be a far greater danger than GW. As a scientist/contributor to “The Great Global Warming Swindle” says, (not an exact quote, but close) “Would you rather have advancing glaciers or receding glaciers? No one wins with advancing glaciers.” There are many sites and articles on the web discussing potential GC. For example see ( and ( .
Well aint that a kick in the head, Al!

Actually not. Ignoring (or not knowing or caring about) the evidence, Obama and his buddies in Congress will help Gore and his other 'green' constituents fleece all of us with their economy crushing cap and trade tax scheme. (For a discussion of how Gore and friends stand to profit from all this see ).
Aside from armed insurrection there are three ways for anti-capitalists to wage war against the free market : taxation, regulation and litigation. Their 'global warming' agenda gives them an opportunity to use all three - a perfect strategic trifecta.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

The war and the economy

While most Americans are understandably focused on our economic problems, Mark Steyn reminds us that there are even more serious concerns out there in Islamofascistland. His latest column in NRO touches on the twin dangers of demography and appeasement. And, of course, he brings up the Geert Wilders abomination.
Consider this - Imagine a short video juxtaposing scenes of Nazi violence with passages from Mein Kampf justifying the violence. Would it be appropriate to arrest the video's producer because of the possibility that Nazis might take offense and react with violence? This is analogous to the British government treatment of Geert Wilders for producing his video linking the violence of radical Islam with the Koran.

Another column by Phil Gramm in the WSJ on Friday (2/20), had the best explanation I've seen yet on how we got into our current economic mess. The column is more detailed but here is the paragraph that summarizes Gramm's main point.
I believe that a strong case can be made that the financial crisis stemmed from a confluence of two factors. The first was the unintended consequences of a monetary policy, developed to combat inventory cycle recessions in the last half of the 20th century, that was not well suited to the speculative bubble recession of 2001. The second was the politicization of mortgage lending.
Now look at how the Fed, Obama and Congress are trying to fix the mess. They're advancing the same easy money policy along with the politicization of mortgage lending.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Good Reading and Bad

Two good columns, both on NRO - Thomas Sowell's decrying (again) the waste and ineffectiveness of the 'stimulus' package. He points out how the 1000+ page thing was rushed through Congress in two days and then sat on Obama's desk for three days awaiting his signature.
And - Mona Charen on the NY Times reporting of the trial of the Khmer Rouge terrorist Kaing Guek Eav, noting that the paper didn't mention even once the Communist nature of that lovely regime. She contrasts this with how the Times' never fails to mention the right wing characteristics of say the Pinochet regime.

I saw again the other day the bumper sticker reading "Against Abortion? - Then Don't Have One"
I'm always tempted to write a response over those inane comments, like "Against Slavery? - Then Don't Keep Them" or "Against Murder? - Then Don't Commit One".
I live in a very liberal area, so I'm continually assaulted by these things. They shouldn't bother me, but they do. They're simplistic at best, vulgar and stupid at worst. ("Buck Fush"). Even the seemingly non-controversial, banalities like "Give Peace A Chance" and "Coexist" (in letters made up of religious symbols) are irritating. The implication is that it is us who need to be taught tolerance. Tell it to our enemies, guys!

Monday, February 16, 2009

Fraud Obama and Useful Idiots

Guess who wrote this.
"Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.
"If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'
"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"

As pointed out today in the WSJ by William McGurn, that was Barack Obama in his 2006 book "The Audacity of Hope". As McGurn correctly points out, he sounds (precisely) like a Republican complaining about the stimulus. (Obama even explains the motivations of those three RINOs, Collins, Snowe and Specter).
It should be clear by now, to anyone paying attention, that Obama is a fraud. (It was clear during the campaign too). All the talk about post-partisan, post racial, transparent, pragmatic, non-ideological, lobby-free governance is just so much misrepresentation (to use a civilized term). Obama is a typical liberal Democrat, Chicago machine politician in the pocket of every far left wing interest group that helped get him elected.

Surprise, surprise!! A veritable Bush-Cheney-Rove foreign policy position paper was advanced in the 2nd episode of "Foyle's War". The bad guys are Nazi sympathizing, anti-semitic British fascists opposed to their country's determination to resist Germany. Today we have Islamofascist sympathizing anti-semites (Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, et al) opposed to America's determination to resist the terrorism of radical Islam. In the program, the pro-Nazis are shown to influence even good, well meaning people into questioning the justness of their government's cause. Foyle's own assistant, who lost a leg in an early skirmish of the war, begins to doubt the aggressive course his nation is taking. Our own 'useful idiots' are similarly swayed by arguments such as 'the power of the Israeli lobby over American politics' and 'no war for oil'.
A couple of other parallels to our current struggle -
An attempt is made to set up peace negotiations with Germany contrary to Britain government policy. The key perpetrator is arrested and charged with treason. (Hear that, Jimmy Carter?).
The fraudulant anti-Jewish tract, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which even today is popular reading among Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, is used as propaganda by the pro-Nazis.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

"Foyle's War"

I've become quite sensitive to films and TV shows which depict situations vaguely analogous to our nation's current struggle against Islamofascism and which subtly (or not so subtly) chide us for our approach. An instance of this obsession occurred today as I watched with my wife a DVD of the 1st episode of "Foyle's War", a PBS (already suspect) Masterpiece Theater production. The show is actually quite good.
The storyline involves a police detective in 1940 Britain operating amidst the backdrop of the start of the war. The plot of the episode is nicely complex but simply described it's about Foyle attempting to solve the murder of a German woman who had been married to a wealthy, influential British man. The underlying theme here is the potential injustices that Germans, even those opposed to the Nazis, might face because of the British citizenry's understandable anger towards them. (One character is a German music teacher who is summarily arrested and detained on shaky grounds). This is one allusion to current events.
At the end, Foyle is faced with a moral dilemma. Does he arrest the man he discovers to have committed the murder (actually two) and for which he would probably be hung. Or, does he let him go because the man, it turns out, is vital to the upcoming war effort and his absence could result in the preventable deaths of British servicemen.
Foyle turns him in because, as he explains to his (female) driver and sidekick, (Foyle doesn't drive - haven't found out why yet) he's a policeman, he has to follow the rules, if the rules are broken then we become like the Nazis themselves. Allusion number two.

In our current war, Americans have shown remarkable tolerance for ordinary, innocent Muslims. A very few incidents occurred in the days after 9/11, but none (that I know of) since and there certainly hasn't been any widespread anger or hatred shown. Muslims have not been denied basic civil rights. Don't even think of bringing up Guantanamo - that virtual hotel, housing terrorists and enemy combatants - hateful ideologues who broke every convention of warfare, are some of the most dangerous people in the world and none of whom are U.S. citizens.
As for breaking rules and behaving uncivilized, viewed outside the context of the war, the Allies certainly did commit atrocities. Doing so did not turn them into Nazis. It did help defeat them. In our current war, we haven't come anywhere near the brutality of the Allies in WW2 and hopefully we won't have to. Still the Eurocentric, peace at any cost, appeasement first left is shocked and horrified by (OMG!) waterboarding!!! One major attack of say ten or one hundred times (or more) the impact of 9/11 and civility will necessarily go out the window. It won't bring us down to the level of our enemies.

Anyway, that's what I mean by being quite (overly?) sensitive to these things. "Foyle's War" is authentic looking, well acted and has interesting characterizations. It's fun to watch and I'm looking forward to the subsequent episodes.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

More 'Stimulus' Points

Thomas Sowell made a good point about the 'urgency' of the 'stimulus' package. Obama needs to get the package through quickly, not because the economy is in imminent danger of collapsing without it but to be able to take credit for the recovery, which will occur with or without the 'stimulus'.

To my liberal friends : How would you respond to a solicitor who comes to your door demanding a donation to the Milwaukee school system for new construction, even though current facilities are of very good quality and under utilized, and none of the money can go to its charter school program which does a better job educating its students at about half the cost? Oh, and also how about donating to a Filipino WW2 veterans fund and livestock insurance and fixing up the National Mall and condoms for the poor and dozens of other "worthy" spending projects? This is one solicitor you can't just tell to go away either. You will make the donations and so will your children and grandchildren.

There is a potential silver lining to the passage of this thing. It should make it more difficult for Obama and friends to spend any additional money on stuff like government sponsored universal health care or 'global warming'.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

"Failed Policies"

The talking point used by Obama and his supporters as they advance that monstrosity of a 'stimulus' package, is that we don't want to go back to the 'failed policies of the past'. Oh?! And what failed policies might they be? The big O is always short on specifics. For good reason - he favors them. Here are the U.S. budgets for the years 2000-2007 :

Receipts Expenditures Surplus/Deficit
(In Trillions)

2000 2.025 1.789 + 0.236

2001 1.991 1.863 +0.128

2002 1.853 2.011 -0.158

2003 1.782 2.160 -0.378

2004 1.880 2.293 -0.413

2005 2.153 2.472 -0.319

2006 2.407 2.654 -0.247

2007 2.568 2.729 -0.161

(Sorry for the spacing problem)

Since the Bush tax cuts took effect, revenue has soared. This is contraintuitive to the liberal mindset, of course. The deficits, which, by the way, had been falling until the financial meltdown last year, were caused by the explosion of Federal spending. Obama's cure - more Federal spending. If you want to blame Bush for his part in increasing spending, go ahead, but understand that 1) He was advancing a liberal agenda, and 2) The present economic mess we're in was caused, in large part, to the loose money policy of the Federal Reserve and the de-risking of subprime mortgages by congressional Democrats supporting affordable housing for the poor through their advocacy of (the illiquid) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As with Bush, the Democrats demonized Herbert Hoover. Unlike Bush, Hoover's policies - increases in spending, higher taxes and protectionism - all dear to the Democrats, did much to push the U.S. into a depression. FDR upped the ante on Hoover's policies, keeping the country mired in depression for eight years. I don't think Obama and the Democrats can do that much damage this time - moves made by the Fed should help us avoid disaster - but they are doing damage.

One more point. It would help some if Obama wasn't so downbeat. I thought he was the candidate of "Hope". Much of what he says sounds mostly like fear to me. FDR screwed up but at least he could talk the talk.

Monday, February 9, 2009

The Write Stuff

One of the pleasures in life for me is reading well written, intelligent, conservative commentary. Humor enhances the experience, though some very good writers are just deadly serious. I've comprised a list of writers whose bylines are enough to get my attention, regardless of the subject they're writing about.
Jonah Goldberg - Funny, expert in ideological philosophy and very good at refuting leftist arguments.
Charles Krauthammer - Like Goldberg, excellent at picking apart opposing viewpoints. The best of the Fox News panelists.
Victor Davis Hanson and Ralph Peters - Serious, knowledgeable commentators on military matters.
Amir Taheri, Fouad Ajami, Michael Ledeen - Experts on the Middle East and Islam.
Bert Prelutsky - Very funny and he's good at expressing his incomprehension of the popularity of liberal dogma. (especially as personified by Obama).
Ann Coulter - Liberals hate her because she sounds just like them only with a 180 degree different viewpoint. She's a lot funnier though. Great at insulting those who need it.
David Horowitz and Norman Podhoretz - A couple of true neocons (converted liberals). Very sober, generally pessimistic writers. Don't write columns often. Read their books.
Brent Bozell and Bernard Goldberg - Media bias experts. Bozell often writes about the pervading left wing influence on the culture, especially Hollywood.
Christopher Hitchens - I know he's not really conservative, but he's an excellent writer and he appreciates the wonder of Western Civilization and why it's worth fighting for. His support of the liberation of Iraq was unflagging.
Jay Nordlinger - Sort of a folksy style. Like Prelutsky, comments directed often at the irrationality of the left. Good at pointing out the atrocities occurring in Cuba and China.
Rob Long - Former "Cheers" screenwriter. Misses sometimes but his hits are very funny.
John Derbyshire - OK writer. I like him much better as a speaker on NRO's "Radio Derb".
Ross Douthat - "Crunchy conservative", but he's a good movie reviewer for NR.
Dorothy Rabinowitz - Always good, but doesn't write political columns very often.
Michelle Malkin - Tiny Asian woman who agressively and relentlessly attacks left wing nuttiness.
Thomas Sowell - Good on economic issues and the myths of liberal economics. His "Random Thoughts" are fun to read (I would have used that as the title of my blog if he hadn't taken it first). He also likes baseball and that's always a plus. Also, he's a member of that most courageous of groups - black conservatives - speaking of which there's -
Shelby Steele and Larry Elder - Always ready and willing to expose race hucksters like Jackson and Sharpton as the frauds they are.
Mona Charen, Rich Lowry, Daniel Henninger, George Will, Michael Medved, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes (a better writer than panelist on Fox News) - All good on general conservative issues.
And Mark Steyn. Funny, (very funny), acerbic, knowledgeable and worldly, with a profound understanding of the threats to America and Western Civilization. (Demography is paramount). Happily confronts and debunks opposing ideas and attitudes. Thus the title of his column, Happy Warrior - which is the first thing I read upon receiving National Review every two weeks. Rivals Ann Coulter in insulting the insultable. My favorite - John Edwards, Oleaginous Creep. (And this was before anyone knew about his infidelity to his cancer stricken wife). Steyn should compile some of his best columns into a book and title it, "This Is The Way Things Are".

Friday, February 6, 2009

Leftwing perversions

Some ideas or positions held by those on the left aren't just unwise or thoughtless, they're perverse. Absolutely nuts. Reading or hearing about them I sometimes feel like I'm living in the Bizarro world of Superman fame. For example :

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can rant about America as the Great Satan and how Iran will obliterate Israel. For this, leftists will actually cheer, as they did at Columbia University last year. What does upset them was his sayng that there are no homosexuals in Iran, a stupid, objectionable statement, but minor compared to his more egregious ones. (And BTW, please explain to me why Ahmadinejad is welcome in New York but a great successful American corporation - the largest employer in the country, Wal-Mart, is not).

Speaking of successful American corporations like Wal-Mart, Exxon, Microsoft, Merck, and even McDonald's. Why are these attacked by those on the left, while unsuccessful, failing enterprises like the banks and auto companies are rewarded? Sadly, it's not only Democrats who do this - Bush/Paulson are after all the authors of the TARP and McCain regularly attacked big Pharma during the campaign. But liberals have it programmed in their DNA. And they do it for the same reason they favor, with numerous entitlements, unproductive, unemployed slackers while hardworking, productive individuals are punished with confiscatory taxes. It's the socialist mindset that any inequity is unfair (oh no!!) and must be corrected even if there's a very good reason for that inequity.

And why are good, patriotic, peace and freedom loving Americans like Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft despised and compared to Hitler, while evil monsters like Mao Zedong and Che Guevara are glorified? Consider that Obama campaign site that sported a Che poster. Imagine if a wall at a McCain site had posted a large photo of Heinrich Himmler. Think that would have passed by unnoticed?

Wednesday, February 4, 2009


Timothy Geithner cheated the IRS and now he runs the IRS. That’s change I don’t believe in. I hope he goes away.

The Dems say it’s patriotic to pay taxes. (Not that they pay it themselves). I guess those Boston Tea Party celebrants were unpatriotic. Sorry, no. It’s the absence of government coercion that made (makes) America unique and great.

Know how the MSM blamed everything that ever went wrong on Bush? Well, notice how the market takes a dive every time Obama or one of his cronies opens his/her mouth. The press hasn't made that connection. And, BTW, Barack’s been talking a lot. You want to fix the economy, Mr. President? Hush up.

Among Obama's wrongheaded executive orders are the ones directing the Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, to issue final rules for cranking up fuel economy standards from 22.5 mpg in 2011 to 35 mpg by 2020. He also directed EPA head Lisa Jackson to reassess a request by California (Thanks, Arnold) to establish limits on CO2 emissions. President Bush wisely rejected the request in December, 2007.
With the U.S. automakers struggling to survive, these measures could well be the final nail in the coffin. Even in the best of times, automakers spending on research and development isn't limitless. They will now be forced to invest in improving their fleets' mpg average while neglecting a much more worthwhile project, auto safety. Technology exists today that could significantly reduce the horrific death toll on American roads, around 40,000 annually. One researcher familiar with the subject estimates that this number could be halved with proper investment in development. Instead, that money will chase an endeavor that will have zero benefits - no effect at all on air quality or 'climate change'.
The left, so utterly dismayed by the six year death toll of around 4,000 Americans in Iraq, is blithely unconcerned about a total of ten times that, every year.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Hooray WSJ

There've been some good columns in the WSJ the past couple of days focusing on the war we're fighting and how the American people, press and leaders see (and often misread) it.
Yesterday, Dorothy Rabinowitz described the vacuousness of Obama's moralizing and the dangers it presents. I would like to see her write more often. Her columns are always pointed and well argued.
Today there are these these :
Daniel Henninger on our success in Iraq and how it can be the model for real change in the mideast if Obama doesn't squander it.
William McGurn on the hypocrisy of the Democrats concerning coercive interrogation of terrorists.
Judea Pearl (Daniel Pearl's father) on the moral decrepitude of apologists for terrorism. (Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers are used as examples).
For those willfully blind who insist on displaying those inane posters and bumper stickers, "End the War", there's this from Henninger :

al Qaeda was a no-show on Saturday (for the Iraqi national elections). Meanwhile, more U.S. soldiers died in accidents (12) than in combat (4) for the month of January. The war is over.

And, deeply disappointing to the left, in Iraq, we’ve won.

A couple of days ago, I likened that madcap trio, Obama, Reid, Pelosi to the Three Stooges. Since then, I've done a Google search of that connection and sure enough there are plenty of examples. Honestly, I was unaware that the comparison had already been made. I should have known though - the similarities are just too striking.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Consolation Prize

A while back I attended a luncheon honoring a friend of my wife. To begin the proceedings, the first speaker, apropos of nothing - this wasn't a political event - told a George Bush joke. I don't exactly remember the set up lines but the punch line involved Bush thinking that the word 'Brazilian' was a very large number. Yuk, yuk. Of course it got a big laugh from the Aint That Bush Stupid crowd.
This was an example of what are basically 'dumb blonde' or 'moron' jokes, substituting Bush for those mentally challenged individuals. What makes these jokes less than funny for me is first, the sheer numbing repetitiveness of the theme, and second, the fact that Bush isn't stupid. (Though listening to him speak extemporaneously, one could see how people might think he is).
Liberals, I believe, liked to laugh at Bush's supposed lack of intellect, in part, to ease their frustration of not having one of their own as President. If we can't have our guy in power, at least let's enjoy deriding the undeserving one that is.
Now that their guy is in power, it's conservatives turn to try to find consolation. I can think of no better way to do this than to point out and deride real sources of hilarity - Democratic leaders in Congress and His Righteousness himself, the current President.
At this, the author, essayist, columnist Mark Steyn has no peer. For a prime example, read his column appearing in National Review Online this weekend. He skewers the Dems 'stimulus' package with phrases like "the federalization of condom distribution". It's a funny piece, but Steyn, as he often does, finishes it with a sober, pessimistic assessment.
Hopefully, we can look forward to some high comedy from the vaudevillians infesting the halls of power in Washington. (Barack, Nancy, Harry as Moe, Larry, Curly?) Is the entertainment value of having the Dems in charge worth the accompanying diminishment of our country? Certainly not. But it does make it more palatable.

This from the current print version of National Review :

Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama, for example. The University of Chicago Medical Center hired her in 2002 to run “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting.” In 2005 the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000 — nearly twice what her husband made as a U.S. senator. Oh, did we mention that he had just become a U.S. senator? He sure had. Requested a $1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact. Way to network, Michelle! But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000? We can think of only one explanation: Roland Burris’s wife wasn’t interested.

One of Obama’s current talking points is the unfairness of corporate officers continuing to receive large compensation packages while their companies are laying off workers by the thousands. His moral outrage would carry more weight if he hadn’t also gamed the system. The above instance isn’t his only one either. (See, e.g. Rezko, Tony). BTW, I bet those CEOs don’t have any trouble feeling proud of their country, Mrs. Obama.