opinetree

Check out my new project, a community that can be found here:

www.yourpoliticsareboring.org

This is the end of OpineTree. It was a great year-long run, and a big thanks to all you loyal readers, but it's time to move on to bigger and better things, and this project is certainly both. So go read!

You can't make this up. Timothy Geithner, President-elect (God I'm sick of hearing that term) Obama's incoming Secretary of the Treasury, is President of the New York Federal Reserve - you know, the private bank from which our government borrows all of the money in existence, at interest? Yeah, that one.

It should be noted that this arrangement creates an obvious paradox: if all legal money has to be borrowed from a single bank with owed interest payments, and every dollar borrowed will just increase the amount the government owes to the private bank, and the amount of money in existence will never be enough to match the amount of money owed back to the bankers...

Where does the money to cover the interest payments come from? Your Federal income tax, of course. This outrageous facet of the "arrangement" is second to the fact that the implication of this is that the government (and you) are owned by the private bankers.

It seems Timothy failed to pay more than $34,000 in federal taxes while he worked for the International Monetary Fund. Hmmm...wonder how that happened.

The kicker is, according to the Wall Street Journal, Geithner was aware of the owed taxes in 2006, when the IRS audited his 2003-2004 taxes and concluded he "owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230." Yet in November of 2008, just after the Messiah was selected (I mean uh, elected), it came to light that Geithner had failed to pay the exact same taxes for 2001-2002.

So Geithner paid the taxes he owed for 03-04 when the IRS notified him, but not until November 21st of 2008 (coincidentally the very day he was named Treasury appointee) did he pay them for 01-02.

Either way the Obama team tries to slice this, it's embarrassing in the most hilarious way. Their official position is this:

"The Obama team said Mr. Geithner's taxes have been paid in full, and that he didn't intend to avoid payment, but made a mistake common for employees of international institutions."

So he's an international banker who's "unaware" of the IMF's regulations establishing the responsibility for paying payroll taxes, despite being a director of the institution.

At best, and as unbelievable as it may seem, he doesn't completely understand the system. While that's one way in which he's no different than the rest of us, does that sound like a good appointment to the Treasury, the department we're told is in charge of "overseeing" the IRS?

At worst, he's a tax cheat. Again I ask, does that sound like a good appointment?

The funny part is, the media is trumpeting this "outrage" over Geithner's tax missteps, while completely ignoring the other "complications" to his appointment, namely that as President of the Federal Reserve of New York and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he not only oversaw the Wall Street meltdown, but is quite literally one of the men responsible for the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

I know you're a puppet Obama, but marionettes are much more fun to watch.

Labels: Economy, Federal Reserve, Taxes

I wish I could say this reflected the broader Palestinian sentiment, but that isn't the case. Consider this an interview with a human shield, her four-year-old sister one of the 60 civilians killed in IAF strikes so far (as opposed to over 300 Hamas personnel)


This did not air on Israeli networks, but rather Palestinian Authority TV. I have no reason to question the integrity of the clip, but some are suggesting it's a "Pallywood" attempt by Fatah aimed at undermining Hamas.

When Hamas starts to care more about protecting the people of Gaza (instead of using their bloodied corpses as PR tools), and less about the goal of destroying Israel, the Palestinians will be much better off.

I only wish America had the stomach, the will, the nationalist pride that the Palestinians have to fight and defend every inch of the land that is rightfully ours, instead of remaining complacent as the elite throw open our borders and tell us that sovereignty is an "anachronistic" concept.

When compared to the quislings in the United States, that particular facet of Palestinian culture is admittedly admirable.

Labels: Hamas, Israel, Palestine, Terrorism

Keith hops on-board as co-host as we discuss the escalating situation in Gaza, the continuing trumpeting of the man-made global warming theory, and the nauseatingly obsessive press and their love affair with Obama.

Labels: Podcasts

Director Steven Soderbergh is releasing a biopic about Ché Guevara, the Marxist "revolutionary" many in America cherish for entirely naive reasons. It's another depressing chapter in the idolization of a violent thug, whose image is plastered on anything capitalism can sell, creating perhaps the only humorous aspect of his legacy: perfectly misconstrued posthumous irony.

Imagine if Hitler was a pop icon. At one point he was, but only when his name was Ernesto "Ché" Guevara, as he stood against everything most of his T-shirt clad worshipers claim to believe in. Most of these people stand against capital punishment. Che not only believed in it, but practiced it mercilessly and without criminal trials.

Most of these people stand for personal freedom. Ché sent youngsters to "re-education camps" if they were caught listening to pop music. Most of them also claim to respect intellectual accomplishment, but Ché's writings are re-hashed two-bit slogans from the mouth of Karl Marx.

Most Guevara lovers value "heroism," an attribute they claim to see in Guevara. How heroic is getting your rocks off by shooting unarmed citizens in the back of the neck? Many close to Ché would remember the legendary "Paredón" - something Ché (acting as Castro's personal executioner) loved to show off.

It was the wall against which he executed political prisoners, stained red with the blood of countless victims.

Imagine if someone released a biopic about Adolf Hitler and portrayed him as a vegetarian painter who loved animals and hated unemployment. Just like The Motorcycle Diaries, it would be true, but rather beside the point. As someone once said, the only difference between Ché and Pol Pot is that Ché never studied in Paris.

Although it would be hard to find someone who wouldn't point out the irrelevance of Hitler's hobbies, there are throngs of Ché-lovers in America. But just as Hitler's crimes are entirely documented, the damning evidence of Ernesto's brand of thuggery is not hard to come by.

There is a massive amount of carefully researched and documented information telling the real story of Ché's bloodlust, as well the economic disaster over which he and Fidel Castro presided, which forced starving Cubans to choose between brutal totalitarianism and risking their lives by fleeing the island.

Does putting homosexuals into labor camps sound heroic to you? What about mandatory nation-wide AIDS testing, and the forced quaratine of all HIV-positive Cubans on the Isle of Pines? The Castro-Ché regime murdered more people in their first three years in power than Hitler and the SS did in their first six, and the percentage of Cuba's population imprisoned in labor camps was larger than the percentage of Soviet citizens incarcerated and sent to labor camps under Joseph Stalin.

I guess you could call him a revolutionary hero, if by "revolution" you mean "regression into a police state," and by "hero" you mean "brutal tyrant." If you're starting to realize Guevara wasn't a righteous soul worthy of heroic remembrance, Hot Topic probably didn't need your business anyway.

Labels: Communism

Talking about Wall Street, Congress, Obama, Iraq, and the entire facade of government in the United States. This week's podcast includes clips from Congressman Ron Paul and veteran investor Jim Rogers, speaking of the current financial crisis.

Labels: Podcasts

No, this isn't The Onion. This is of course while the approval rating of Congress has hit the single digits again, and while wildly unpopular legislation bailing out failed banks and corporations is being shoved down the throats of the American people.

The Hill is reporting on this unbelievable story:

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

I would like to propose a new law requiring all congressional pay raises to be subject to approval by the electorate. After all, we're paying for it right? Shouldn't we be the ones to decide whether or not they deserve it?

Think about it. Who determines whether you get a raise at your job? Your boss, of course. It's his money. I've had several jobs in my life, and I don't ever remember one where the only requirement for getting a pay raise was signing a piece of paper and announcing to my boss that he'll now owe me more money every year.

And they don't deserve it. Let's take their approval rating, which currently sits at a pathetic 9%. If you worked in an office, and there were 100 people in that office, and 91 of them thought you were doing a poor job, do you think you'd be able to convince your boss to give you a raise?

You'd be lucky to even have a job. In fact, the only thing separating you from a Congressman would be the fact that you actually stay at work for 8 hours a day, instead of strolling in at 11:30 (11:45 if you're Cynthia McKinney and you have trouble with security), renaming a post office, passing a "resolution" congratulating a college sports team, and eating a corn-beef sandwich before calling it a day.

Labels: Congress

Hamas has declared an end to its ceasefire with Israel, which was largely meaningless given that Hamas has violated it on more than one occassion. More than likely what this means is that the Islamist group has simply had enough time to stockpile more weapons and ammunition to feel heroic again. Super.

From the Reuters report:

Hamas on Thursday declared an end to a six-month-old Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Israel in the Gaza Strip, raising the prospect of an escalation in cross-border fighting.

"The calm is over," Hamas official Ayman Taha said in an announcement after concluding talks with Palestinian factions in the coastal enclave controlled by the Islamist group.

Israel's Haaretz is also reporting that the Israeli military cancelled weekend leave for all troops near Gaza and is preparing for "mobilization." Why does Israel keep agreeing to these "ceasefires?" They know what happens every time: The Israelis stop fighting, the Islamists fire more rockets, and then use the "calm" to reload, re-arm, and re-recruit. Then, it begins again.

If Hamas wants to call off the ceasefire, I say let 'er rip Israel. Hamas doesn't want peace, they want the complete destruction of Israel (as they have officially stated). This is Jihad, and Jihad never ends.

If only Jimmy Carter could save us!

Labels: Israel, Terrorism

Just after Dianne Feinstein and just before Aretha Franklin, evangelical minister Rick Warren will deliver the invocation at Obama's inaugural ceremony. Cue immediate gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual/trigenital freakout.

Mark my words, this is but the first in a long series of disappointments among America's liberal community, as they will slowly realize that the mantra of "change" was simply a slogan, and Obama is only a slightly blacker (albeit more handsome) puppet, with strings tied to the same hands that have been running this country for decades.

Gays and indeed most liberals are shocked, shocked that Obama would pick a Christian who supported Prop 8, the amendment to the California state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I'll remind liberals that their Messiah himself supports this traditional definition of marriage, but is in favor of legal, taxation, and employment equality, and for domestic partnerships or civil unions.

This is the exact same position as Warren's. Is nobody realizing this? You want he should have picked Jeremiah Wright? Where were your voices of outrage over his 20 year relationship with that "Christian?"

This is really just a nod from Obama to America's religious community; an attempt to bolster his manufactured image as a centrist who is sensitive to the desires of religious Americans. But liberals are fah-ree-king-out:

"By choosing homophobe Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to do the invocation at the inauguration, Barack Obama just said to LGBT Americans that we're not part of that event." -- AMERICAblog

Get over yourself! On the one hand, I'm glad you aren't blindly following The One, but honestly, doesn't this at least show you what a calculating man he is? He is, after all, a politician. I also love the notion that if you support Proposition 8, you are automatically a "homophobe." I need a couple hands to count the number of gay friends I have, and I supported Prop 8. I guess I just secretly hate gay people.

"With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama's America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren't for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?" -- Firedoglake

I love it! Now even liberals are asking the "change we can believe in" question with their tongue planted firmly in their cheek! Once again, supporting traditional marriage = "hate." He may not like sharing the stage with hate, but he's fine with sharing a church with it. Do they not realize that Obama has been courting Warren for years now?

"This is more than a serious faux pas; this is an insult to all the queers and non-believers who worked their asses off to elect Obama-Biden. We need to let the President-Elect know that parading a homophobic bigot at his big parade rains on ours." -- Mike Tidmus

Liberals generally follow certain guidelines when deciding whether or not to castigate fellow liberals. It's amazing really. Liberal feminists will still cheer the likes of Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy. Liberals who claim to be tolerant of other races will support former KKK member Robert Byrd. The only thing liberals can do wrong is to either be insufficiently liberal, or to somehow suggest legitimacy to conservative ideas.

The shoe incident notwithstanding, Bush is undoubtedly glad to get out.

Labels: Marriage, Obamamania

Topics covered in this episode include: New York governor David Paterson’s scheme to tax virtually everything in existence, a persiapocalypse update in the wake of new warnings from Israel, and the now-infamous incident involving an Arab, a Texan, and 2 size 10 shoes.

Labels: Podcasts

The globalist agenda rolls on. In October of 2007, the annual Frontiers in Education Conference met in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Among the papers presented at the conference was "Critical Theory, Globalization and Teacher Education in a Technocratic Era," written by three professors: Mark Malisa, Randall Koetting, and Kristin Radermacher.

The opening statements read:

"Our perspective is that of educators who view the current world as one that is highly internationalized and intensely global, rendering nationalistic orientations obsolete. We also view education and educators as involved agents in the construction of a just social world, and contend that this implies infusing the curriculum and teacher education with cosmopolitan sensibilities, frequently, through critical theory and critical pedagogy."

The authors assert that national identity is anachronistic and obsolete in the new "intensely global" social order, and that children ought to be indoctrinated to accept this notion. The report states that American education programs must adopt a "global perspective" and that "the time of splendid isolation is over...purposes of education have changed."

"As globalization becomes the dominant term for describing and conceptualizing teacher education, colleges and schools of education will need to revisit their mission statements and rethink what it means to be part of the global community," the report states. It concludes by admitting that there will be resistance to these measures, stating "...a lot of work remains to be done in creating a critical consciousness that makes it possible to realize that global solidarity does not threaten nationalism."

Though these three professors in particular may not realize it, their objectives are part of an agenda that has been pursued for decades. Tax-exempt foundations, particularly the Rockefeller Foundations, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation were instrumental in influencing U.S. education policy. Are we to believe these rich bankers and industrialists had a genuine philanthropic interest in bettering the education system of the United States, or does it make more sense that they wished to use their money, power, and influence to carry out an elite agenda? I'm convinced it's the latter.

Labels: Education, Globalism

Details are emerging about the absolutely horrifying course of events for victims of the Islamic terror attack in Bombay. The following story is from the son of Apoorva Parikh, a 57-year old father who is still recovering from his injuries. Apoorva had gone to dinner that night with two friends, and upon hearing the initial gunshots, the hotel staff attempted to hurry the guests out of a kitchen exit.

"As the guests tried to rush into the kitchen, one terrorist burst into the restaurant and began to shoot anyone that remained in the restaurant. At this point my father was in the kitchen and, along with his two friends, rushed to the fire exit. They had barely descended a few steps when they were trapped from both ends by terrorists.

"The terrorists then rounded up anyone alive (about 20 people) and made them climb the service staircase to the 19th floor. On reaching the 18th floor landing they made the people line up against a wall. One terrorist then positioned himself on the staircase going up from the landing and the other on the staircase going down from the landing.

"Then, in a scene right out of the Holocaust, they simultaneously opened fire on the people. My father was towards the centre of the line with his two friends on either side. Out of reflex, or presence of mind, he ducked as soon as the firing began.

"One bullet grazed his neck, and he fell to the floor as his two friends and several other bodies piled on top of him. The terrorists then pumped another series of bullets into the heap of bodies to finish the job.

"This time a bullet hit my father in the back hip. Bent almost in double, crushed by the weight of the bodies above him, and suffocating in the torrent of blood rushing down on him from the various bodies my father held on for 10 minutes while the terrorists left the area.

"When he finally had the courage to wiggle his arms he found that there were four other survivors in the room. They communicated to each other by touch as they were too afraid to make a sound.

"My father moved just enough to allow himself room to breathe and then lay still. The survivors passed over 12 hours lying still in the heap of bodies too afraid to move.

"They constantly heard gunfire and hand grenades going off in the other parts of the hotel. They feared that any noise would bring the terrorists back.

"After approximately 12 hours, the terrorists returned with a camera and flashlight and joked and laughed as they filmed what they thought was a pile of dead bodies.

"They then moved to the landing below where they set up explosives. On their departing, my father decided that it was too risky to remain where they were, due to the explosives."

The three survivors then climbed the rest of the stairs to reach an air-cooling plant room where they hid, drinking sips of water from the air-conditioning unit, until Friday morning when a commando team rescued them and took them to a hospital.

Labels: Terrorism

If you thought this story couldn't be topped, you're in for a good one. Add this to the long list of things that have Muslims outraged:

"A range of Lego-style fighting figurines - including an Islamic terrorist militant - has sparked outrage among Muslims. Shocked by the playthings, British Muslim organisation the Ramadhan Foundation has branded the figurines "absolutely disgusting".

Chief executive Mohammed Shafiq said the figures were "glorifying terrorism".

He said: "I don't think there's any difference between someone that shouts hatred through a megaphone and someone that creates a doll that glorifies terrorists...It belittles the pain the families of victims of terror have gone through."

Other fighters in the range include World War Two troops, US marines - and a Nazi SS officer."

Ah yes, everyone knows the stereotypical evil Muslim terrorist: yellow skin, a perfectly symmetrical body, and hands suitable for grabbing only the most cylindrical of objects.

The depressing part is that most Muslim organizations are more outspoken and "outraged" by effing toys than by the senseless murders that are carried out in their name. I'm sure the Ramadhan Foundation was "outraged" by the 10 Muslims who managed to torture and kill hundreds in Bombay last week (no, I'm not going to call it Mumbai). See any Jewish groups outraged over Lego Nazis?

Let's do a little experiment. Pick a group, any group at all. It can be a religious group, a political group, an occupational group - whatever. Now add the word "Outraged," paste it into Google, and hit enter. Here are my scientific findings:

What a burden it must be to carry such a large share of the worlds outrage. Whether it's cartoons, puppies, potato chips, inbreeding, college exams, bank robbers, or wine tastings, there's no shortage of outrage from the Muslim world. The non-Muslim world isn't looking for you to point out their "intolerance" in the areas of toy-making. It's looking for you to point out the subversion of your religion by Godless killers, and join the rest of the world in saying "enough is enough."

Labels: Islamophobia

Good ol' JPost brings us this story of an impending Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, with or without American support. Perhaps the only thing separating this story from the slew of similar articles over the last year or so is the fact that the U.S. is currently in presidential limbo.

Well, that and the fact that Iran is as close as ever to possessing an Islamic Bomb (if they don't have one or several already). From the Jerusalem Post:

Israeli officials have said it would be difficult, but not impossible, to launch a strike against Iran without receiving codes from the US Air Force, which controls Iraqi airspace. Israel also asked for the codes in 1991 during the First Gulf War, but the US refused.

"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a top Israeli official said.

Yeah, like the Star of David getting shot down by the Stars and Bars, or God forbid the Star and Crescent. Israel's task of destroying a sufficient number of Iranian sites is daunting, but not impossible. And besides, impossible aerial missions are supposed to be what the IAF is all about.

The even more daunting aspect of a strike is the aftermath. As disgusted as most Iranians are with their rulers, nothing will unify them more than an Israeli bombing run. And nothing will cause oodles of self-detonating Shiites around the world to murder innocent civilians, something Israel will - believe it or not - attempt to avoid during a strike. It will almost immediately awaken two particularly vile arms of the Persian Octopus, Hamas and Hezbollah, igniting war on the northern border with Lebanon, and inviting more rockets and suicide attacks.

That is, of course, providing Iran doesn't just launch their own arsenal, nuclear or otherwise.

Labels: Iran, Israel

In honor of the current chapter of the American financial meltdown, here's "The Big Three Killed My Baby" by the White Stripes, one of their few politically oriented songs.


As 61% of Americans are opposed to a bailout of the three auto giants, they're being threatened once again. Just like the subprime lending crisis, we're being warned of a potential "new Great Depression" if we don't create money out of thin air to rescue the auto industry. From Breitbart:

"We're on the brink with the U.S. auto manufacturing industry," [Chrysler executive] Press told The Associated Press in an interview. "If we have a catastrophic failure of one of these car companies, in this tender environment for the economy, it's a huge blow. It could trigger a depression."

These companies have no plans to change their business models, no plans to alter their relationships with unions or lobbyists...they have no plan other than to beg the government for their own chunk of taxpayer money. There isn't even a plan to pay Americans or the private banks back for this bailout, other than to create a "government oversight board." Gasp! A government oversight board! How I feel better already.

Bailouts do not solve problems. They are government-issued band-aids that consist of money that never existed, created out of nothing and on loan from a private bank. Free enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system devised by mankind. Freedom has a neat way of working out like that. But economic liberty includes the freedom to fail if you don't live up to the expectations of your consumers, bind yourself with union agreements, and churn out poorly-made and decidedly ugly cars that no one will drive.

Labels: Economy